1921-04-01

['I will see that the matter is communicated to the officers of the department and that they be instructed to take any precautions we should take in the matter. I do not know who is liable in such a case.']
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister):: I beg to move-subject, 1 think it must be, to unanimous consent:
That a special committee consisting:	of
Messrs: Steele, Blair, Cowan, Keefer, Hocken, Douglas (Cape Breton South and Richmond), Ross, McKenzie, Lemieux and Maharg, be appointed to inquire into all matters pertaining to the future fuel supply of Canada, with power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath and to report from time to time.
This is in pursuance of a resolution of the House debated a few days ago.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In the absence of notice, this motion, I believe, does require the unanimous consent of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Montmoreney):: In the absence of the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Lafortune) I beg to move for leave to introduce Bill No. 52. to amend the Criminal Code.


Arthur Meighen: Explain.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The folowing section is inserted immediately after Section 229 of the Criminal Code, Chapter 146 of the Revised Statutes of Canada:
229a. Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years imprisonment or a penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars, or both, who
(a)	In any premises under his control, to which the public have access, engages in or petmits other persons to engage in the game known as "Three Card Monte" or similar game played with other instruments than cards,
(b)	Engages in the game of Three Card Monte, or similar game played with other instruments than cards, in any public place, or any place to which the public have access.
The member for Jacques Cartier himself could explain the Bill more fully than I can. It has for its object,. however, the preventing of the extortion of money from people in the city of Montreal through the carrying on of a crooked confidence game which has been flourishing there for some time. The law does not seem to be very clear on this subject; the courts have had difficulty in finding any authority upon which to base the conviction of- culprits who have been found guilty of engaging in this practice.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 45 for the relief of William Henry Coulson.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 46 for the relief of Elizabeth Alexander.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 47 for the relief of William Gleaves Doyle.-Mr. Best.
Bill No. 49 for the relief of Dorothy Mearuel Score.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 50 for the relief of Henry William Maynard.-Mr. Middlebro.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiscouata) :: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid): On my way to Riviere du Loup during the recess I heard that one man working on a section of the railway had been dismissed. This is a matter of public importance, having regard to the safety of the road.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope the hon. gentleman does not, on the Orders of the Day, purpose putting a question in respect to the dismissal of one man on the Intercolonial Railway.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I think it is in the public interest that we should know,


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Everything which takes place in the House of Commons should be in the public interest. There is, however, an opportunity to put a question of this kind on tne Order Paper in the ordinary way.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I would not take that trouble, Mr. Speaker, because it would take too long, and I want an answer at once. I would like to know if an order has been issued to dispense with the services of one man on every section of the road.


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The hon. gentleman knows
that the management of the Canadian National Railways is not under the Department of Railways and Canals, but under the Board of Management; therefore no orders have been given by the Minister of Railways.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I ask
what department the Board of Management is under?


John Dowsley Reid: There is a Board of
Management appointed for the operation of the Canadian National Railways- appointed by statute, not by the Minister of Railways. In reply to the hon. member, I stated that no orders, therefore, had been issued by the Minister of Railways or by the Department of Railways.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are we to
understand that the Board of Management is not responsible to any department of the Government?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
knows that the statute speaks for itself in that regard.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must submit in any
event that this subject cannot be tried on the Orders of the Day.
CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE-INFORMATION :
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysborough) :: When the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) made his statement on Tuesday with regard to the Government ships, he stated that he was willing to give the fullest information to members of the House. He used very broad language:
That every contract made, every voucher paid, every letter and telegram exchanged between the Department and contractors is open for the fullest inspection of any member of the House who desires any further information.
[Mir. Gauvreau.]
Taking advantage of that pledge or promise I put a question with regard to the steamship Recruit and I got my answer yesterday that the Department did not know anything about it; that the matter was in the hands of some corporation in Toronto. I want to ask the Minister of Marine how he failed to implement the pledge that he gave to the members of this House on Tuesday with regard to this matter.


Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: The words
that my hon. friend has referred to as having been used by me when presenting my statement to this House on Tuesday last pertain only, as he can easily tell by reading them over, to the letting of contracts for steel ships entered into between the Marine Department and the shipbuilder. It does not go any further.


Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly-Vercheres) :: From the statement made by the Minister of Marine that this question will be considered by a special committee of Parliament, are we to understand that the Government has decided to adopt the fatherless child of the hon. member for Halifax?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Explain.


Joseph Archambault: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has on the Order Paper a resolution calling for the appointment of a committee. Does the Minister of Marine and Fisheries refer to that committee when, in his answer, he says that all these questions will be considered by a special committee of Parliament?


Arthur Meighen: As I made the statement with regard to a special committee in a previous debate in this House, I may say that it is the intention to move that a special committee be appointed to consider just such subjects as were referred to by me in my speech and as were referred to by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in answer to these questions.


John Howard Sinclair: Are we to understand that the committee is to decide what questions are confidential and what are not? -


Arthur Meighen: A committee does not decide, it reports. The special committee will report on such subjects as are referred to it. The subjects referred to it will be such as were indicated by myself in that speech.


Joseph Archambault: Are we to understand that all the details of operation of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and the Canadian National railways will be considered by that special committee?


Arthur Meighen: I have not said so.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There can be no crossexamination of the Government upon the Orders of the Day.


Joseph Archambault: Surely I am entitled to an answer.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Not upon the Orders of the Day. The hon. gentleman will have ample opportunity on several occasions during the sittings of the House; but I must point out, as I have on previous occasions, that there is no right, inherent or otherwise, on the part of hon. members on the Orders of the Day to submit questions except with regard to returns and matters pertaining to the business of the House. There has, however, been on the part of the Chair always a desire to permit questions of public and of such urgent character that it would be undesirable if they were left on the Order Paper for several days before being answered. But there can be no cross-examination of the Government as to policy or otherwise. Furthermore, in no case could there be submitted a question which tended to reflect upon or call in question the policy of the Government. That rule has always been rigorously adhered to in all instances.


Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere) :: Will a statement be made public as to the administration of the Canadian Mercantile fleet, or will the only information be that which was put on Hansard the other day?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The only statement which the Government will make is the one that I presented to the House on Tuesday last; but the operating company will also embody the report of their directors-and, I should imagine, rather fully -in their annual report when it is issued.


Thomas Vien: Will the report of the managing company be distributed amongst the members?	.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: And when?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I cannot inform the hon. gentleman definitely now. I will find out and let him know at the next session of the House.


CANADIAN LOAN TO ROUMANIA
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: A newspaper despatch announced last night that the Canadian mission in London had arranged to accept Roumanian Government bonds bearing interest at 7 per cent, to cover indebtedness due by the Roumanian Government for credits which were granted a few sessions ago, and it is further stated that the interest on the loan will be paid to-day. I should like to ask the Government whether, seeing that the banks are now closed for the day, the money is to the credit of the Canadian Government, or whether this is merely a cruel hoax on the part of the Roumanian Government, as this is "All Fools' " day.


Arthur Meighen: I do not receive hourly or momentary reports from the banks as to what money is paid in, and I have not knowledge of the subject to enable me to answer the question. I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Finance.


QUEBEC CITADEL
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I should like, with your permission, Sir, and for the purpose of asking a question, to read certain extracts from the Quebec Telegraph of March 30, with reference to the rocks from the Citadel threatening the inhabitants of a certain portion of the city of Quebec.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no desire to object to the hon. gentleman submitting his question because it may be of an urgent character, although perhaps local in its nature. If the lives of people are endangered through lack of attention on the part of the Government, it may be proper to put the question; but the hon. member is not called upon to read a newspaper article in order to put his question. He might summarize it.


Charles Gavan Power: The newspaper report
sums up the situation probably better than I could do so. As regards urgency, these rocks are falling at almost the identical place where a great landslide occurred some years ago, causing a number of people to loss their lives, so that the question is really one of some urgency' and of more than local importance.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the hon. gentleman has submitted his case sufficiently to put the question to the Government and get the answer he desires.


Charles Gavan Power: There is just one more thing I wish to say, namely, that the city disclaims all responsibility, and it was to that portion of the article that I wished to call the attention of the Minister of Militia.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Militia and Defence):: I will see that the matter is communicated to the officers of the department and that they be instructed to take any precautions we should take in the matter. I do not know who is liable in such a case.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Trade and Commerce-Canada Grain Act, administration ot, $1,175,000.
['There is a Bill under way.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister explain the increase of $175,000?


George Eulas Foster: This appropriation covers the operations under the supervision of the Board of Grain Commissioners in carrying out the operations authorized under the Canada Grain Act. The increase of $175,000 over last year is almost, if not entirely, due to reclassification and the raising of salaries consequent thereupon. This appropriation covers all expenditures for salaries of officials, permanent and temporary, and contingencies of the various officers under the eastern and western grain inspection division; it includes salaries and contingencies of the Board of Grain Commissioners, the working expenses of all Government elevators, internal and at port terminals, and salaries and expenses of the grain research laboratory, with the exception of the chief chemist, who is on the Civil Service list and whose salary has already been passed.
I may say generally with reference to this service that it is self-sustaining, and a little more than that, varying from year to year according to the crop. For the year 1920-1921 up to January 31, the fees collected amounted to $1,118,813, which is a little larger than the revenue for the whole year 1919-1920, so that we may expect to find, when the accounts are closed to the 31st of March, that the total receipts for the year have been considerably above those of the previous year; and if we have as

good a crop next season the revenues on the same basis will meet the expenditure and probably leave something to the good. The aim is, as far as possible, to make the service pay its way. During the several years that the Grain Act has been in operation there have been years when there was a deficit, but since 1911 I have tried so to arrange it that whilst the charges shall not be so high as to bring in a great surplus, they shall be sufficient to meet the expenditure for the year, and leave a little surplus to go upon in case the returns for the following year are not so large.


Mr. BELAND:: How many grain elevators has the Government?


George Eulas Foster: The Government has a terminal elevator at Port Arthur, terminal elevators at Saskatoon, Moosejaw and Calgary, and a transfer elevator in Vancouver. There is also a bit of the foundation of an elevator in futuro at Hudson Bay, but that is not in operation at present so far as elevating grain is concerned.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Are there any in the
East?


George Eulas Foster: The Government has elevators in the East at Port Colborne, operated by the railway department in connection with the railways, as well as elevators under the Harbour Commissioners in Montreal and Quebec. Then there is a small elevator in Halifax, which is in fact a transfer elevator.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The Quebec elevator is
not very busy, is it?


George Eulas Foster: It has done
some work, and I hope it will be busier in the future.


Joseph Archambault: Would the minister explain the increase of $175,000 in this item?


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend's question shows he was too busy conversing with his mate, because I have answered exactly the same question by the leader of the Opposition. I am not averse, however, to answering it again. The increase of $175,000 is due to the increases in salaries under re-classification. Altogether, under this vote some 429 employees are paid, so the increases spread over that number amount to a pretty tidy sum.


Joseph Archambault: I understand the country derives some revenue from this

item. Where can we find a statement of that?


George Eulas Foster: I can give my hon. friend the figures.


Joseph Archambault: Are they not
published?


George Eulas Foster: I already gave them when my hon. friend was conversing.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: What is the amount to be expended on the Quebec elevator out of this item?


George Eulas Foster: Nothing has
been expended on the Quebec elevator by us. It was built by the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec, out of loans advanced by the Dominion Government. The elevator is managed by the commission.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Has the Government nothing to do with its management?


George Eulas Foster: No.


Mr. MICHAUD:: The minister has given the elevators in the West and in the province of Quebec. How many are there in the Maritime Provinces?


George Eulas Foster: I gave that
information, but I will give it again. There is a small elevator at Halifax, used chiefly for transfer purposes. That is the only one the Government owns in the Maritime Provinces. The Government had an elevator, as my hon. friend will recollect, in St. John, but it was destroyed by fire. The Canadian Pacific have elevators on the west side, which do the grain transfer of the harbour.


Joseph Archambault: Are the revenues pertaining to this item published in the Trade and Commerce report?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, I will give them to my hon. friend. The revenue for 1920-1921 up to January 31, was $1,118,813.


Thomas Vien: How does that compare
with the expenditure?


George Eulas Foster: The expendi-
* ture that is asked to be voted for the coming year is $1,175,000. The expenditure up to January 31, 1921, was $982,431, but of course the accounts are not all in for the year ending to-day, nor even for the period up to January 31. The expenditure so far as the accounts have come in, is quite a bit less than the revenue up to January 31. There is no doubt that the
revenue for the year ending to-day will be over and above the expenditure.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Does the minister follow the financial year or the calendar year in adjusting these accounts?


George Eulas Foster: The financial
year.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough) :: I should like some information from the minister in connection with an answer which was given yesterday by the Minister of Finance to a question I asked. My question was, what were the approved securities forming part of the basis on which a large number of Dominion notes were issued. Dominion notes are authorized up to a certain number of millions of dollars, according to the gold kept in the vault. A change has been made in the statute by which not only gold but securities forming part of the basis on issue of Dominion notes. The question was, what are the particular securities on which this $127,000,000 of Dominion notes are issued? The Minister of Finance tells us that, among other things, Dominion of Canada bonds were one of the securities, others being bonds of the Canadian National Railways and assignments of grain and produce. How can grain and produce be used as a basis of currency in Canada?


George Eulas Foster: What is the last phrase my hon. friend is reading?


John Ewen Sinclair: A number of securities are specified, among others, assignments of grain and produce and demand notes of commercial houses endorsed by banks to the order of the Minister of Finance. Now, it was a new idea to me that grain and produce could be used as a basis of issue of notes for circulation in Canada. We were accustomed to the idea that Dominion notes must be based on gold, and I confess it was a rather startling idea to me that bonds of the Canadian Government,-a debt owed by the Government itself-could be used as a basis for the issue of further notes. That, however, is not the question I am asking now. The question is: By what means are grain and produce used as a basis for issuing Dominion notes?


George Eulas Foster: I am not entirely conversant with the matter. The Minister of Finance will give more precise information to my hon. friend. But I suppose

that these are bankers' securities that they hold. It does not mean that grain in its passage through Canada can be, or is, in any way used as a basis lor the issue of Dominion notes. It must mean that notes are issued on the strength of securities which the bankers have. However, I would prefer my hon. friend to take the matter up with the Minister of Finance.


Thomas Vien: Will the minister please explain these items contained on page Z 12 of the Auditor General's report?
* Advances to George Searls, chief inspector, Winnipeg, $115,711. Advances to George Searls, chief inspector, Winnipeg, $129,445.57.
It seems that the Auditor General's report does not afford much information with regard to the expenditure of this money.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend will quite understand the purpose of these advances. Mr. Searls is chief inspector of the whole of the grain business and has a large staff at Winnipeg working under him. All the samplers, graders, inspectors and clerks who have to carry on this manifold work must be paid, and an advance is put into the bank to the credit of Mr. Searls. When these salary cheques become due he checks out against that advance.


Henri Sévérin Béland: His own personal
cheques?


George Eulas Foster: No, the
cheques are all official. It may be that his is the last signature, but the cheques are thoroughly conserved as to security.


Thomas Vien: Are all these employees under Civil Service Commission appointment?


George Eulas Foster: They are all under Civil Service Commission appointment except those that are not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


George Eulas Foster: That statement sounds superfluous, no doubt, but I will explain the situation to my hon. friend. Those that are not under the Civil Service Commission are nevertheless under a certain regulation; according to the income of the grain at different seasons, or at different periods within active seasons, it is necessary to put on a certain number of temporary employees. Similarly, if a man goes out through sickness or any other cause someone must be put in his place. Now, it is obviously impossible to carry on these operations uninterruptedly if a written request for employees to fill these tem-

porary positions must be sent to the Civil Service Commission. If such written applications were sent to the commission, the positions would have to be advertised, and that, of course, would consume so much time that in the interval the service would be disorganized. Under an arrangement with the Civil Service Commission, the staff officer out there, Mr. Searls, can put on these temporary employees as the necessity for them arises. They cannot be termed permanent because, after a little time, the rush is over and their services are immediately dispensed with. Trouble having become imminent in regard to temporary positions, I requested the Civil Service Commission to send one of their number to Winnipeg. He went into the whole matter with the authorities there, and this arrangement was agreed upon between them and is being carried out under the supervision of the Commission.


Thomas Vien: What is the system that
prevails in the appointment of these temporary employees?


George Eulas Foster: I cannot give complete information regarding the whole modus operandi.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is it similar to the
system in connection with the census?


George Eulas Foster: No.


Thomas Vien: What is the difference?


George Eulas Foster: I know nothing about the matter so far as the temporary employees are concerned, neither do any of my officers. If Mr. Searls wants a man for any of the reasons I have given, he employs a proper individual who, in his judgment, is fitted for the work. These appointments are absolutely without the least shadow of patronage so far as my department or anybody else is concerned. They are within the entire control of the supervising officer himself.


Thomas Vien: Who is one of the officers under my right.hon. friend?


George Eulas Foster: Yes; if he were not he would not be there.


Thomas Vien: Then I am sure this gentleman will take into his serious consideration the advices he receives from my right hon. friend's supporter, the member for the particular locality, when he makes such appointments.


George Eulas Foster: I am quite sure, because I have absolute knowledge, that

he acts on no recommendations, he takes recommendations from no person whatever. Any one may submit a name to him, but he acts entirely on his own responsibility. I hope my hon. friend will be serious about this matter.


Thomas Vien: I am.


George Eulas Foster: Two hundred and fifty thousand cars pass through that centre. They have their periods of congestions as also of diminished numbers, and Mr. Searls is absolutely responsible for getting these cars graded and checked through with the very minimum of delay. He is responsible for the grades, because they furnish the basis upon which commercial transactions go on. Being responsible, therefore, he is the only man to decide who these temporary employees shall be.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Does he also settle the question of salaries or remuneration?


George Eulas Foster: The question
of remuneration is settled, under those circumstances, on the basis of the current wage for that kind of employment in the locality. That is the wage he pays. But he must have the men, he must carry on the work; and if he cannot get a man that suits him at that wage, he is at liberty to give him what is necessary. And this has the approval of the Civil Service Commission.


Mr. MAHARG:: What opportunity has he for making a comparison with the wage that is paid elsewhere for similar work?


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Searls is in the very centre of the grain business. He has been there, as my hon. friend knows, for a long period of years. He knows what an expert grader gets, and what the current wage is, and I do not know of any person in Winnipeg who would have a deeper or more comprehensive knowledge than he would in regard to the services for which he requires men.


John Archibald Maharg: I quite agree with what my right hon. friend has said because I know Mr. Searls intimately. But my point has reference to the minister's statement that Mr. Searls paid the current wage. Now there is no other similar work being carried on in the city of Winnipeg that I know of-there is only the one inspection bureau.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend must surely be a little bit mistaken in that
statement as regards men who are competent to grade grain. The work done in the other elevators, and by the other companies, gives Mr. Searls a line upon which he can base his determination. But outside of that, he knows the man he wants and he gets him by giving him what he considers necessary to obtain his services and to keep them. He also knows thoroughly well the wages that are current in ether cities, outside of Canada itself, where graders are used. I do not know any one who would know the facts in that regard better than he.


John Archibald Maharg: I quite admit that Mr. Searls is quite qualified to estimate the ability of the man he is employipg, but he has no other similar institution, such as there is elsewhere, which will enable him to make a comparison as to the wages that are paid-there is only the one inspection bureau in Winnipeg. It is different in other places. For example they have an independent inspection bureau on the other side of the line. That is something that we have for a long time been trying to get this Government to establish, but so far without success. I believe there should be a check maintained in that respect. That is why I raise the point.
While we are on the matter of inspection I would like to draw attention to another point. When the salaries in connection with the Grain Act, were under consideration a short time ago the stipend of the individual in charge of the laboratory in Winnipeg was under review. The hour was rather late and I did not press the point at that time, but I now wish to have a little further elucidation. The point arose in connection with the amount of moisture that was allowed in the grain to permit it to enter certain grades. If 1 remember correctly the minister said that that factor did not enter into the matter of grading to any extent-that the grading was done by the feel, the touch, and the appearance and colour of the grain. In reality the operation of grading goes much further. I believe there is a fixed standard and that 12.8 of moisture is permitted in the grain. Now we in the West have never been able, as yet, to find out just who has been responsible for the fixing of that amount of moisture which is permitted in the grain, other than the chief inspector. No doubt that official takes advice from other individuals. And that is where our quarrel arose. I remember

that at a sitting of the Grain Commission held in Winnipeg a few years ago this point came up. We always believed, and experience has proved, that the amount of moisture allowed in grain to enable it to enter storage in certain grades is much below	the	amount	of moisture	thatgrain	will	carry	and keep.	Thathas	been	proved	before; but	at
the sitting in question representatives of the two largest milling concerns in Canada were present and they were much opposed to the amount of moisture being increased -that is the amount of moisture allowed in the different standards of grain. They claimed that they were continuously having trouble in disposing of their flour to the European buyers on account of the excess of moisture that was in the flour. We, as producers, were absolutely helpless in the face of that argument advanced by two responsible men. However, I took opportunity on the very first occasion that offered to make a little inquiry into the matter. I happened to be in the office of another of the largest milling concerns in Canada, who also have interests in the United States. I asked the manager of this firm if they were exporting large quantities of flour to the Old Country, and he replied in the affirmative. I then asked him if they had any difficulty or any complaint as to the amount of moisture that was contained in their flour, and he replied that they had absolutely never heard of a single complaint from any person. Now that mill was running day and night, including Sundays, on war orders, continuously during the war; and yet those people had received absolutely no complaint at all as to any excess of moisture in their flour milled from practically the same wheat as the other mills were milling from the different concerns' elevators being scattered over the entire country. Now that is our complaint. There is a difference of anywhere from six to eight and ten cents a bushel in the price paid for grain, as between the straight grade and what is known as "tough." The mills are usually quite anxious to get the grain that is graded tough, as I think the reports of the chemist in Winnipeg if they are examined will show that that grade makes just as good wheat for milling purposes and can be used to as good advantage as even the straight grade. The only difference is the actual weight of the excess of moistureone-half, one-quarter, or one per cent_______
which it may contain.


Mr. CURRIE:: Has not the wheat got to be passed through a drier, which is an advantage?


John Archibald Maharg: No it does not have to be passed through a drier; it is simply run in with the other grain and there is no drying process-in fact moisture is added to it. Those who understand the milling business know that moisture has to be added to wheat in order to fit it for a proper working. Under the circumstances we would like to have this matter investigated a little further. We do not think that the man who is in charge of the inspection should say just what amount of moisture wheat should contain before it is permitted to enter certain grades. We are especially fortified in that opinion by reason of the evidence given at the sitting to which I alluded, where it was clearly shown that the inspector based his conclusions on the statement of the millers alluded to-statements which were absolutely contradicted by another firm who have practically as large milling interests, and as large an European market, as are possessed by those who appeared before the commission. I would like the minister to take this matter into consideration, as it means a very heavy loss to the farmers of western Canada for no reason whatever.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Archibald Maharg: Before the vote carries
I notice an item of $350,000 of revenue from the surplus fund of the Board of Grain Supervisors of Canada. I would like to know just how that money has been apportioned? Has it been allotted to assist in meeting the expense of the administration of the Canada Grain Act, or has it gone into the general revenue?


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend refers to the surplus that was left over after the Board of Grain Supervisors had finished their work?


John Archibald Maharg: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: That went into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.


John Archibald Maharg: I would like to know if that is the only surplus that has gone into that fund from the handling of grain under the control of the Government at different times.


George Eulas Foster: Yes. The surplus which remained, after all the accounts have been adjusted and the expenses pro-

vided for, went into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The wheat board has been in charge during the succeeding season, and there will be a certain surplus over and above the expenses after the distribution of the $2.63 a bushel which has already gone into the farmers' hands. That surplus, however, is so small that it is absolutely impracticable to make a division of it amongst the holders of certificates

the expense of making the distribution would be almost as great as the amount to be distributed. But any small surplus will go into Consolidated Revenue Fund. As to whether there are any other surpluses, there were no other methods that i know of by which any could accrue to the Government on the handling of grain. My hon. friend may have sometning in mind, and if he mentions it I will be able to tell him clearly.


John Archibald Maharg: Was there any surplus from the first commandeering Ox certain quantities of wheat at the head of the lakes?


George Eulas Foster: My impression is there was none. I will make inquiries and let my hon. friend know.


John Archibald Maharg: Am I right in understanding that this large increase of $175,000 in this vote is to provide for salaries under the reclassification?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, that increase arises from reclassification.


John Archibald Maharg: What percentage of the total cost of administration is attributable to salaries?	[DOT]


George Eulas Foster: I can give my hon. friend 1919-1920, which is a full year.


John Archibald Maharg: That is satisfacory.


George Eulas Foster: The statement of expenditure for that year is as follows: Board of Grain Commissioners, salaries $21,200, wages, commissions and contingencies $9,522, making a total for the Board of Grain Commissioners and their staff of $30,722. In the western inspection division the salaries amounted to $219,300; wages and contingencies, $340,389, making a total of $559,691. In the eastern inspection division the total is $13,411. And in the Grain Research Laboratory the total is $9,244. Therefore the total for permanent salaries is $256,052, and for wages and contingencies $357,018, or together $613,070, the total expense of the Act being $925,597.


John Archibald Maharg: One hundred anu seventy-five thousand dollars seems a very large increase on a little over six hundred thousand dollars. It would appear as though the Civil Service Commision was a rather expensive institution if its reclassification has resulted in similar increase an the way through.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend will recollect that there are about 400 employees altogether, including temporary and permanent.


John Archibald Maharg: That does not affect the percentage. That percentage is tremendously high. It would be interesting to have comparative results in the case of a similar number of employees in any other department. We have heard both in the House and in the press a good deal about the appointment of a commission of inquiry into the grain trade. Will the expense of that inquiry be taken care of by these figures?


George Eulas Foster: That would not come under these figures at all.


John Archibald Maharg: Of course, the appointment of that commission comes,
4 p.m. indirectly at least, from the Department of Trade and Commerce?


George Eulas Foster: I presume so.


John Archibald Maharg: The personnel of that commission is of great interest to us in the West; in fact, the whole inquiry depends on the personnel. I do not know whether we are to pay attention to current rumours or not, but if some of the men whose names are mentioned are to be on that commission, the expenditure entailed will be absolutely thrown away. Among the names mentioned are those of two gentlemen, one a direct member and the other was secretary for years. The most important feature that needs investigation, it seems to me, is the working of that Grain Commission. Certain transactions we would like to have an opportunity of probing, for instance, the famous Curry case-11,000 bushels of wheat went out of one government elevator without anybody knowing anything about it. Now, the Grain Commission is absolutely responsible there, and in the investigation or suit entered to determine the ownership of this quantity of wheat in so far as I can find, not a single individual who had to do with the moving of that wheat from the elevator was called on the carpet. There are other things we would like to inquire into as well.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend will have a full opportunity of criticising

the commission when it is appointed, and maybe it would be just as well to wait until that time, as then we will be certain we are criticising the proper parties.


John Archibald Maharg: I am not criticising the proposed commission, I am criticising the grain commission that has been in existence for years. To my mind there is absolutely no use in appointing a commission to inquire into the irregularities that have been mentioned across the floor of the House if the personnel of that commission is to include gentlemen who were or are connected with the Grain Commission which is responsible for some of those irregularities. If there is anything in the rumours I have referred to, the commission certainly will not appeal to the grain trade and the wheat producers in Western Canada.


George Eulas Foster: We will see when the report comes out.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Although we are not a grain producing country in Cape Breton we are very much interested in grain and its products, and I would like some further information on the grain question. The minister has been congratulated that notwithstanding the many changes which have taken place in the ministry which he adorns, his own department has been managed so satisfactorily by him that he has continued to remain at its head. For that reason we appeal to him with all the greater confidence for reliable information. I must congratulate the minister upon being able to give information which, whether or not it is always well founded, is pretty well rounded off and stands the test for the time being. Many years ago I suggested that the minister's department should be able to follow the grain through its various stages from the time it left the field until it got into the hands of the consumer and to be able at all times to tell the people whether or not they were getting a square deal. The price of flour at present is abnormal. For many years we got the very best flour available for $5 a barrel, sometimes for $4.50, but now we are paying as high as $16 a barrel, although the income of many men who have to buy that flour is pretty much at a standstill. The people who pay that big price expect their representatives in Parliament to ascertain some of the facts in connection with this very important staple article. I heard the minister say yesterday that the price of wheat had gone down very materially. Is that reduction in the price of

wheat to be followed by a reduction in the price of flour? A western man who is very much interested in this business told me the other day that figuring a fair price for flour and counting four and one-half bushels of wheat to a barrel, flour should sell at $8 or $8.50 a barrel. Now, there is an enormous profit somewhere when a barrel which, it is stated, should sell at $8.50 or thereabouts actually sells at $16. The ordinary person has no power to inquire into these things. During the war the people were told that they could complain to their town council or municipal council of any exhorbitant charges made for the necessities of life, with a view to having the matter taken before a magistrate's court. That procedure was not of much avail; it was not productive of any serious results. These things must be dealt with by the machinery of government, and if it is a fact that the price of wheat has gone down and that wages are to some extent going down, the Department of Trade and Commerce should at least make it known authoritatively that there is no justification for these exorbitant and as it would appear to me extortionate, prices of flour. I am well informed that we have no honest competition in any trade in this country; that everything is divided off and that a combine of more or less potentiality exists with respect to all these things. The Government has cut off the head of the Board of Oommerce; therefore they have taken the responsibility upon themselves. I bring these matters in all seriousness to the minister's attention in the hope that there shall be no combines, either in connection with grain or the activities of the millers or the wholesaling and retailing of flour, which will make possible the charging of extortionate prices. No one finds fault with the carrying on of business in a proper way and with a view to making legitimate profits, but the people do object to any combine which has the effect of restricting production and keeping up prices. I am sure that the minister has such a knowledge of his department as will enable him to take this matter in hand. It is not one which concerns me personally, because the quantity of flour I buy is very small.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman eats oats mostly.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes, I am largely an
oats eater. I commend it to my right hon. friend or to anyone else, because it produces the proper kind of pugnacious material. As I say, I bring these matters to the attention of the minister in all serious-

ness on behalf of thousands of people who buy flour and have families to feed.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Following up the
remarks of the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) may I ask the minister if it is the intention of the Government to appoint a commission to inquire into the grain trade of this country?


George Eulas Foster: There have
been rumours that such is in the air, but I think all I can say to my hon. friend is that if a commission is to be appointed, announcement will be made to the House in due course. I cannot give him any other information.


John Frederick Johnston: Judging from the
minister's answer a commission may or may not be appointed. I think there is no need for such a commission, because the present grain board have every power to investigate all matters pertaining to the grain trade. Why another commission should be appointed at great cost to the country is more than I can understand. Rumour also has it that in connection with the personnel of this commission the name of a member of the present board is mentioned. If anything of that kind is done it would only tend to create dissatisfaction and no good results would be obtained. The appointment of a new commission to deal with matters pertaining to the grain trade, would not, I am sure, meet with the approval of the producers of Western Canada. Unless it is an absolutely independent commission.


John Allister Currie: I quite agree that an independent commission should be appointed to investigate the whole matter. For instance, it would be very interesting for the farmers of Western Canada to know why, when the British Government was buying wheat in June last, they could not buy any in Canada, but they bought a whole year's supply in the United States at $3 a bushel, and then when there was no one buying wheat for Great Britain, how it was that wheat was sold short in Chicago and who benefited by that selling short. Those are matters involving $100,000,000. It is of far more importance to the western farmer to have those facts brought out than to have the duty on a binder reduced by fifty cents. Those are matters that should be investigated because, through some person's action, the markets of the world have virtually been closed to Canada, and a great deal of loss has resulted to the farming community, not only in the West, but in Ontario, and we
ought to know those facts. I quite agree that no one connected with the ring in the West should be put on any of those commissions. Ontario farmers would like to know why they have to pay a toll on their grain to carry wheat for gentlemen in the West. The Ontario farmer has been taxed so much a bushel for all his grain

I do not know whether he is now-to carry wheat in western elevators. Those are matters affecting farmers in the eastern part of the country; an independent commission would go quite a long distance in straightening out these facts, and the Grain Growers' Company of the West should be the first to welcome an investigation, because there have been some ugly rumours in the East with regard to the conduct of their business.


John Archibald Maharg: How are the Canadian
farmers taxed?


John Allister Currie: That is what I should
like to know. The Ontario farmer was charged two cents a bushel all during the war. He does not carry his grain in an elevator, but there was an elevator charge on all the wheat he sold.


John Archibald Maharg: I think the hon. member will find that that was in the case of grain sold to the mills. There was some dissatisfaction at the start in connection with that, but I think that matter was gradually straightened out. In reply to the first part of the hon. member's remarks, I think I can tell him why the market was closed to Canada. Immediately on the announcement that the Canada Wheat Board would not be continued for another year, the Americans sold their entire surplus of wheat to Great Britain. That was something they would not have dared to do had the wheat board been continued, as they would have known they would have the wheat board to buy from and not a hundred thousand farmers scattered throughout the country. That is the secret of the whole thing, and the hon. member's estimate of $100,000,000 is quite conservative. In my speech in the debate on the Address I stated that we had lost a hundred million dollars and that our adverse balance of trade between Canada and the United States would have been rectified to that extent, had we had the price we would have had if the wheat board had been continued. That is the answer to the whole thing. Immediately the announcement was made that the wheat board would be discontinued, the Americans sold their surplus



wheat, knowing they could well replace it, and the Chicago market tells the tale. It was pounded down immediately after that; our markets had to follow, and the result was the Americans got at least $100,000,000 of our good money that we should have got from them for our wheat through the one action of the wheat board being discontinued.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman
knows more about this question than I do.
I am speaking from information. My knowledge of the facts is simply this, that the hon. gentleman and his followers in the grain exchange in the West have been fighting for open markets and free trade for years. They fought the Government last year, and then the action of the Government in regard to the wheat question turned out to be all right. Last year I challenged the hon. member, as a matter of protection, to fix a price for the farmers, and he refused to do so. This year they fought for an open market and they got it. What happened? Great Britain came into the market last June to buy her wheat, but there was no person in Canada to sell our wheat to her. If we had had a grain board, it could have sold the whole Canadian crop for $3 a bushel, but there was no one functioning for Canada. Then the British buyers went to the United States, and they could get people in that country who sold them 180,000,000 bushels in June last. That shut out the Canadian farmer from foreign markets except in the United States. Then these gentlemen, knowing that the needs of the market had been fulfilled as regards the United States' and Canada's crop, and knowing that the British would not be buyers for six months, pounded the market; the grain gamblers in Winnipeg sold fall wheat in Chicago at from $2.80 to $3 a bushel, and then they turned round and hammered the western farmer and covered their trades at around $1.50 a bushel, pocketing the difference. An investigation of the whole matter would enlighten the country a great deal as to the way in which those agricultural philanthropists do business with their friends.


John Archibald Maharg: My hon. friend (Mr. Currie) is right in part when he states that the grain exchange was asking for an open market, but he is entirely wrong when he says that the farmers were asking for an open market a year ago.


John Allister Currie: I did not say that the farmers were, but hon. gentlemen opposite,
fMr. Maharg.]
who represent the Agrarian group and the Grain Growers, were yelling for an open market all the time.


John Archibald Maharg: The hon. member is
absolutely wrong. Hansard will prove, without any words of mine what attitude I took. I do not need to say a word; the hon. member can look at Hansard. Within three months after the board was first appointed, its continuance was asked for unanimously, without a complaint, at a shareholders' annual meeting of the largest elevator company in Western Canada, and that action was followed up right along to the day that the wheat board was discontinued. Every western organization, not only the associations, but the commercial companies as well, asked for the continuance of the wheat board. So that the the hon gentleman's statement that the farmers or those representing them wanted an open market, is absolutely wide of the mark, as everything published goes to prove that they were unanimously in favour of its continuance. Immediately they saw the personnel of the commission they said: That is the board we want; we want it continued just as long at least as there is controlled buying in the Old Country.


Mr. MORPHY:: What does the hon.
member mean by "open trading"?


John Archibald Maharg: Trading on the exchange.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What did the sellers on the grain exchange want?


John Archibald Maharg: They did not want a
closed market at all; they wanted the gambling that has been going on. If my hon. friend has followed the workings of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not follow gambling practices.


John Archibald Maharg: I did not say "if the hon. member followed the practices;" I said "if he followed the workings of the market." I do not think, for a moment, the hon. gentleman would indulge in practices such as that; but as a citizen of Canada and a consumer of flour, he should take an interest in knowing why the dealers charged practically as much for their flour when the mills bought their wheat at $1.50 or even as low as $1.25 a bushel as when they paid $4 a bushel for it. The difficulty in this country is that the consumers are not taking the interest they should take in the matter. A very pertinent question for the consumer to

ask is why they were charged the same price for flour when the wheat that it takes to make a barrel of flour was bought for $6 to $7, as they were charged when it cost possibly $20 for the same quantity of wheat. The hon. member should be interested in the matter as he is a consumer of flour, or he would not have the healthy appearance he has to-day.


John Allister Currie: The whole trouble with this open market is simply this. The man who headed the commission, Dr. Magill, came down here and preached and talked four-dollar wheat.


Mr. HENDERS:: Five-dollar wheat.


John Allister Currie: Yes, four and five and six-dollar wheat. He quit this Government and was going to take charge of the grain exchange business in Winnipeg. Things were very rosy then. But six months before, the boys in the West had been using their grain certificates to light their pipes at poker games. A man would light a ten-dollar certificate at the candle thinking it was of no use whatever, and as a matter of fact tney turned out to be worth real money, something like bo cents, if I mistake not.


George Eulas Foster: The difference between 15 cents and 63 cents.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: They were very useful anyhow. I kept mine.


John Allister Currie: Somebody has made a tremendous loss. The Agrarian party have been pusyfooting this way and tnat. You never can tell where t,.ey stand on any question, and I think it is well to have an investigation to find out what was at the bottom of all this. When Dr. Magill was preaching five-dollar wheat, did any of the Agrarian party say, No, the whole world is buying-as nations, there is no individual buying? It was the nations that were buying the grain, just as they are to-day. Great Britain bought grain as a nation, so did France and all the other countries, so the only rational way was to trade in grain as a nation. No objection was raised to the open market. I did not see them parading any brass bands around or sending in any petitions against open marketing. Through the lack of common sense of the Agrarian group the farmers of this country lost $100,000,000, and we ought to have an investigation to find out what is at the bottom of it.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Steele):: I would draw the attention of the committee to the
92J
fact that the item under consideration is the administration of the Canada Grain Act. I think the discussion that has taken place is not relevant to the item and I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks more closely to the item before us.


John Archibald Maharg: I would be quite prepared to do so, but the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has made an accusation against the Agrarian group to which, in all fairness, I think I should be allowed to reply.


Michael Steele: We had better adhere to the item under consideration at the present time. There will be other opportunities to reply.


Michael Clark: Surely all this is connected with the grain ousiness. I think we should be allowed a little latitude in the matter. We have not been very troublesome in this corner.


Michael Steele: I thought I had already alloweu very considerable latitude, but perhaps the committee will not object to the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) being allowed a reply; then we will return to the item under consideration.


John Archibald Maharg: 
Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. member for Maple Creek has disclosed the fact that he desired a closed market in wheat for the purpose of increasing the price.


John Archibald Maharg: I must absolutely object to that statement. The hon. member is simply putting words into my mouth that I did not use.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I take it that that is the only logical deduction from the cry he made, because the market was not kept closed. He says the effect of opening it was to lower the price of wheat. At the same time he complains very much because the poor consumer has to pay so much for his flour. His argument is that the high price of wheat should be kept up for the Agrarians, so that the poor consumer can get flour at a lower cost. Such a proposition is absolutely ridiculous. It just shows the insincerity of the hon. gentleman, who is always clamouring in this House for free trade in implements and everything else, but who, when it comes to a question of his own bread basket, through wheat, says: Don't open the market; close it tight, so that we can make all the money we can, and by increasing the price of our wheat we will give the poor consumer cheaper bread. Did any one ever hear anything more ridiculous?


John Archibald Maharg: Facts cannot be disputed. My hon. friend will find that he has been paying for his flour lately just about what he paid when wheat was nearly three times the price it was at one time this grain season. My hon. friend from North Perth says that we asked for the open market in wheat. We never asked for any such thing. What we were talking of was trade on the exchanges in Canada.


John Allister Currie: Yes, but the hon. gentleman-


Michael Steele: I must again ask hon. members to make their remarks relevant to the item under consideration.


John Allister Currie: I was going to speak to the resolution.


Michael Steele: Order. The rule reads:
Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I think the committee quite realize that the discussion recently has not been strictly relevant to the item under consideration, and it is only for the purpose of expediting the business of the House that I now ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the item before us, which is the administration of the Grain Act.


John Allister Currie: We were discussing nothing but the operation of that Act. If we are to be limited to a discussion of what may happen in connection with this item in the coming year, the ruling of the Chair 
is all right, but I have never yet seen a Chairman in this House who was bold enough to close a discussion on what happened in connection with the item under consideration the previous year. It is the past year's operations we are discussing now, not what is going to be done in connection with this item this year. We are not projecting ourselves into the future, but endeavouring to discuss what happened in the past, which is of very great importance to this country.
Just one word in reply to the hon. member for Maple Creek. It is quite safe to say that if anybody hunts through Hansard he will find him on both sides of every question that ever comes up affecting the Agrarian party. You will find his leader on the one side, and perhaps my hon. friend on the other, just to ease up matters, so that if anything goes wrong, one of them will be able to say: We did not take that position. I challenge my hon. friend to show that his party or his leader took a decided stand against the open market. The reason they did not was that they were interested personally in having an open market. I say that a commission should be appointed to investigate and find the nigger in the woodpile.


John Archibald Maharg: I must take direct issue with the statement of my hon. friend that I have been on both sides of every question. I defy him to show by Hansard where at any time I have taken both sides of any one question. That I took one side while my leader took the other is not the question. The statement I originally rose to object to was that the Agrarian party had taken no action either in this House or outside when there was this talk of five-dollar wheat.


Mr. COWAN:: I do not agree with the hon. member for Maple Creek, and I do not believe that any one has ever said that that statement was not made on the other side. I think you could get quite a few in the Agrarian party throughout the west to agree with the member for Maple Creek, but my position is that that hon. gentleman does not speak for the Agrarian party. They have a chosen leader, and when the Prime Minister challenged him he did not say he was in favour of the wheat board. He said most unequivocally that he was strongly opposed to its continuance. Then what happened? That same hon. gentleman who has been chosen as leader in this House of the Agrarian party went to Manitoba and Saskatchewan, in both

of which places he was acclaimed the leader of the party. Within the last few months, since he made that statement in the House, he went to Saskatchewan and was chosen as their leader, and then he went to Alberta where he was also welcomed by that party and where his policy was endorsed. He is the leader of the party and speaks for it, and in that capacity he declared he was strongly opposed to the continuance of the wheat board. The hon. member cannot deny it, and I refuse him the right to speak for the party until he is chosen by them to express their views.


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle) :: To be
fair, the hon- member for Regina (Mr. Cowan), should quote what my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) said.


Walter Davy Cowan: I will get Hansard in a moment.	-


Levi Thomson: Keep
quiet; you have not the floor all the time.


John Allister Currie: It is up to hon. gentlemen to prove the position they take.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Levi Thomson: The hon. member for Marquette said that he did not want the wheat board continued as a permanent thing.


John Archibald Maharg: That is the point.
Mr- THOMSON: He never said that he was opposed to the continuance of it at that particular time; he was opposed to it as a permanent policy. Now, let the hon. member for Regina be fair or pretty nearly fair; at least, let him be as fair as he can.


John Allister Currie: When an hon. member rises in his place and challenges a statement it is up to him to produce Hansard.


Levi Thomson: Nothing of the kind.


Michael Clark: I want to help the minister with his Estimates, but I think they are being obstructed badly at present by his own followers, who are straying quite a distance in the debate on this point. With regard to the attempt to expose the woebegone condition of opinion in the small Progressive group, I think my hon. friends are raising a tremendous tempest in a very little teapot. Why, Sir, it is one of the glories of this group that there is some independence of thought in it. In the last divisions in this House we have been the only group to show that it has capacity to divide on great issues
of public importance. We never see that quality on the part of my hon. friend from Regina, nor is it often displayed by the member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie)- However, let that go by the board. With regard to the position of the wheat board, I take it that we can all get our thoughts into a very narrow and satisfactory compass. I venture to think that there is not a single gentleman in this House who believes that the wheat board was to be a permanent institution in this country. I venture to assert that, and I do not observe anyone rise to say he considered that it should be permanent. It was an immediately post-war arrangement. There were differences of opinion amongst all thoughtful men as to the exact time at which the wheat board's operations should be suspended. There were differences of opinion in this group. My own view about the wheat board is that it is impossible to prove exactly that it was ever of any use to the western farmers. That is my own individual view. During the war anyone could sell at a high price wheat or anything else which the Allies wanted. I make that statement in support of my previous assertion. The same possibility of a difference of opinion arises in regard to the effect of the suspension of the board. Everyone knows that agricultural prices were bound to descend within a reasonable time after the close of the war. During the war, on my own farm in the West, we never took less than 50 cents a dozen for eggs; within the last few months-greatly to the benefit of consumers in this country, I hope,-eggs have gone down to 20 cents a dozen, that is all we are getting now. I suppose the operations of the wheat board have nothing to do with eggs at twenty cents.


Mr. SMITH:: Thirty cents.
_ Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) : My hon. friend is probably informed in regard to Ontario. His information on agricultural matters is no doubt wide, but he cannot correct me in any statement as to what the people in my part of the country are getting for eggs. I congratulate him that he is getting ten cents more. Now, as to my hon. friend's (Mr. Crerar's) position with regard to the wheat board, I am not at all sure that he ever made a definite statement. As I say, there were great differences of opinion as to whether or not it should be continued for another year. The Government was in great difficulties. I for one never attempted to increase those diffi-

culties because I sympathized with them, as I did in all reasonable cases where those difficulties arose from the prosecution of the war. Why is my hon. friend from North Simcoe trying to mix up the question of free trade and free exchanges with the wheat board and differences of opinion on that subject? Where does he want to get to? What is he proving? I submit that all he is doing is retarding the Estimates of the minister, and I do think we had better help my right hon. friend along.


John Frederick Johnston: The member for
Regina (Mr. Crerar) made a definite statement that the leader of this group had opposed the reappointment of the Canada Wheat Board. Now, in my speech on the address, I quoted from the speech of the leader of this party the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), in regard to this enabling legislation as introduced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when this subject was before the House last session, and I shall read that extract. The original statement of the hon. member for Marquette may be found at page 4119, volume 5 of Hansard of last session:
Everyone who knows anything of the European situation must realize that conditions there are very unstable, and in those circum-sicnces I think, perhaps, there is Justification for the Government assuming the power which tney are asking for under this legislation.
That is a direct contradiction to the charge made by the member for Regina. Regarding the stand taken on this matter by the hon. member for Marquette, hon. T. A. Crerar.


John Allister Currie: What I said was that the hon. member was on both sides of the question. His whole speech was for open markets, but he concluded by saying at the end that on the whole the board might be continued for a time.


Thomas Vien: This discussion has demonstrated the difficulties that arise from the application of a vicious principle. To my mind the motive that prompted the institution of the wheat board was both vicious in principle and unjust in application. As the hon. member for Red Deer has said, I doubt very much whether it was of any use to the farmers. But we must admit that it was established at the instance of at least some sections of the agrarian community.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Vien: It was surely not the eastern provinces that insisted on the institution

of the wheat board. Why is it vicious? It is vicious because by it the state instead of private enterprise undertook the marketing of wheat crops.


Michael Clark: Does my hon. friend not recognize that in war the state must be the chief actor in a great many fields of activity, a role which it would not play in time of peace.


Thomas Vien: No. Not as generally as the hon. gentleman has just said, and not in this particular instance because my hon. friend has just shown that there was such a demand for wheat that time that there was no difficulty in marketing the western crop.


Richard Coe Henders: How then do you explain this fact: On the average we in Canada sold our wheat at a lower price than the Americans sold theirs. But during the operation of the wheat board the Americans operated on the open market and we under the wheat board, and got more money for our wheat than our neighbours across the line got for theirs.


Thomas Vien: It does not matter at all; it has no relation whatever to the principle I am now discussing.


Richard Coe Henders: It has, absolutely.


Thomas Vien: The fact that it had or had not that effect has nothing to do with the principle which underlies this question. All sections of the farming interest in Canada might have asked the Government for some assistance-the farmers of the province of Quebec, or the farmers of the province of Ontario, who grow potatoes, or hay, or any other kind of farm produce, could have come to the Government and said "organize a hay board, organize a potato board, so that when the crop is collected we may go to some government warehouse, or elevator, get a certificate and ask the government to finance our whole crop." Such a system is unjust, it is vicious, and it placed on the whole community a risk which the community should never have accepted. The wheat board fixed a minimum price of $2.15 for the wheat crop of the western fields. It is true that at that time $2.15 was quite a safe margin. But we were not under normal conditions, and it was possible for the wisest man to make an error in judging what would be the market price for wheat four or five months afterwards. Then having fixed $2.15 as a minimum price to

be paid the grain growers for their wheat the whole community would have had to stand a loss if the market price had fallen to $1.75, or some other lower figure. I say, this is a vicious principle; and the whole difficulty into which the Government was plunged in judging whether the wheat board should be continued or discontinued, arose from the application of that principle. It shows that a vicious principle should never be introduced into legislation to help in the solving of an immediate difficulty, because it always creates a greater difficulty and it at least creates a wrong precedent. Neither in the case in question nor in any other case should vicious principles be adopted in our legislation.


Walter Davy Cowan: I was challenged by hon. gentlemen opposite to quote from Hansard anything which would show that the leader of the Agrarian party was opposed to the establishment or the continuance of the wheat board last year, and to its continuation as a permanent policy. This subject was under discussion for a considerable period last session. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) who was then leading the Government, correctly appreciated the situation. He saw that the Agrarian party were not taking a very definite stand on this matter and he challenged them to do so in these words:
I did not say I was closing the debate. I earnestly hope I have prodded these hon. gentlemen opposite-
That is the Agrarian party, sitting opposite-
- tc speak their minds. I was very much afraid tiiat the debate was going to close without a word from them.
Following that the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) took the floor, and during his speech he used the words which the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) has quoted to-day. But I wish to draw attention to the very unfair method followed by that hon. gentleman. The hon. member gave a quotation from his leader's speech, but he neglected to cite the qualifying language he employed and which I now propose to read. The hon. member for Marquette, the leader of tfhe Agrarian party said:
I think the Minister of the Interior furnished the only argument that constitutes a real reason why the board should be continued for another year, and that is the possibility of unified buying again in Europe.
These are the qualifying words which my hon. friend from Last Mountain did not read:
At the present time that is not the case.
Now the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crerar) meant that if there was unified buying in Europe he would continue the board for this year. At present there is not unified buying and therefore what is the only conclusion you can draw from the hon. gentleman's statement? It is that he was opposed to the continuance of the wheat board for last year. Having taken that attitude very definitely with respect to one year what does the leader of the Agrarian party say with respect to the Board's continuance as a permanent policy:
Personally I am opposed entirely to any permanent policy that meants the control of the marketing of grain in this country.
Could you have anything more definite than that? "There is no unified buying in Europe for this year consequently we do not need the wheat board and as a permanent policy I am opposed to it." There is no equivocation about that, it is straight opposition from beginning to end, and the hon. member was quite unfair in refraining from reading the expressions of opinion on the part of the hon. member for Marquette which I have just quoted.


Mr. GOULD:: This question has again come to the front owing to members on the Government side endeavouring to fasten the responsibility, upon the Agrarian group in connection with this matter. Despite all their efforts I do not think they have succeeded in converting the majority of members of this House to their belief; neither have they persuaded the people throughout the country that they are right, and after all they are the persons that are most interested. When this question was last under consideration a certain hon. member refused to answer a question that I put to him and the incident thereupon closed. However the subject has once more come to the surface, and perhaps it is well now to thoroughly ventilate the matter. But why, may I ask, do hon. gentlemen opposite endeavour to place the responsibility upon the Agrarian group, because we are not the dominating party in this House?


Thomas Vien: At whose request was the wheat board instituted?


Oliver Robert Gould: I believe that the Government and their supporters were responsible.


Thomas Vien: But at whose request did they act?	.


Oliver Robert Gould: Not at mine, for I was not in the House. However the point is, hon. gentlemen opposite were so wise they persuaded the Government that this was good legislation. They were able to forecast events so accurately they knew it was going to be a success. Being convinced of the likelihood of its successful operation they urged the Government to continue the operation of the hoard. At that time public opinion in the country was favourable to the continuation of the wheat hoard. Yet hon. members opposite are endeavouring to saddle members of the small Agrarian group with the responsibility of their action. Their conduct demonstrates that at one time they were shivering with indecision and they were not then so sure of their ground as they now appear to be, and they are indulging in all sorts of insinuations with respect to us which will not do us the least bit of harm. We try to reflect public opinion. I have done so since I became a member of this House. Speaking directly at the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) who made the assertion that wheat in the United States sold for a less price than our wheat sold for under the wheat board, you might, Sir, remember this fact, that in United States by far the greater proportion of the total crop is soft wheat and should not equal our hard wheat in price. Therefore it is not fair to draw a comparison in that way. I can tell the hon. gentleman from personal knowledge that the hard wheats of North Dakota and Minnesota sold for a higher price than our wheat realized under the wheat board, and I have figures to substantiate my statement. Further than that, the assertion that was made-


Richard Coe Henders: I beg to state-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Oliver Robert Gould: I am just answering the
assertion made that I was diametrically opposed to the wheat board. I want to say that if I lived close to the international boundary, and an open market obtained under the same conditions as prevailed in the fall of 1919, and if I had an opportunity to take my wheat across the international boundary, I would still take my chance of selling my wheat as an individual; but in the interests of wheat growers in the large areas far removed from the international boundary I would support the continuance of the wheat hoard. But I do know, as I

said in my speech on the Address, in the first speech I made in this House, that the individual who went across the line and accepted the Americans' money got thirty cents, seventy cents and as high as a dollar more than was received by the farmer who lived north of the imaginary line along the forty-ninth parallel of latitude. From this would be deducted the value of the participation certificate-48 cents a bushel.
The fact that the wheat board was not reconstituted last year, with the resultant loss of $100,000,000 to western farmers, which I think is very close to the mark, is the very reason why manufacturing establishments in Eastern Canada are closed to-day. The people who require the implements manufactured in those establishments have not got the money they expected to have from their crops, and consequently they are not purchasing. Conditions were upset by the action of the Government in allowing the wheat board to pass out of existence. Why are factories in Eastern Canada full of implements and obliged to shut down? It is because the people have not got the money with which to buy those implements, which were manufactured in anticipation that the purchasing public would require them.
I would like to ask the minister a question about the personnel of the proposed commission of inquiry into the grain business. Assuming such a commission is to be appointed, will the names be submitted to the House before the commissioners are actually appointed?


Michael Steele: Order. I must call attention again to the fact that the matter under discussion is not the appointment of a commission to investigate the grain business, but an item regarding the administration of the Canada Grain Act. It is quite out of order on this item to, discuss the appointment of any proposed commission of inquiry.


Oliver Robert Gould: Mr. Chairman, with all
deference I would say that this commission would have to enquire whether the Canada Grain Act had been wrongly ad-
5 p.m. ministered. I therefore wish to ask, in case such a commission of inquiry he appointed would the names of the proposed commissioners be given to the members of the House before they are actually appointed, so that we may have an opportunity to discuss the merits or demerits of the proposed appointees?


John Allister Currie: Now, Mr. Chairman-


Oliver Robert Gould: May I have an answer
from the minister?


John Allister Currie: The hon. minister cannot answer that question because the matter involved is not before the committee. This is not our fight, it was started by the hon. member from Maple Creek, and we do not want to retire from the field without having the subject very thoroughly threshed out.


Michael Clark: Finish the fight.


John Allister Currie: The most pithy saying
in the debate last year on this question was the statement of the leader of the Grain Growers' party, which has been quoted already, and I will quote it again. He said:
I think the Minister of the Interior furnished the only argument that constitutes a real reason why the Board should be continued for another year, and that is, the possibility of unified buying again in Europe.
Then he deliberately misleads the House in order to make his point-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


John Allister Currie: He said-


Michael Clark: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I submit that my hon. friend is out of order in charging any hon. member with deliberately misleading the House.


John Allister Currie: I said that he was misleading the country.


Michael Clark: I say further, Sir, that my hon. friend is the only gentleman who would prefer such a charge, even if it were in order, against the hon. member for Marquette in his absence.


John Allister Currie: Yes, I am very sorry
the hon. member for Marquette is not here to take his gruel. But I did not say he deliberately misled the House-


Michael Clark: Mr. Chairman, I must ask for your ruling on the point of order. My hon. friend charged the hon. member for Marquette with deliberately misleading the House.


John Allister Currie: I said he deliberately
misled the country, not the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, you said
the House.


Michael Steele: If the
hon. member did not charge the hon. member for Marquette with misleading the House, he is in order; otherwise he is not.


John Allister Currie: Then I will withdraw
the remark and say that he deliberately
misled the country, because he made a statement that there was no unified buying in Europe. As a matter of fact, unified buying in Europe continues to-day. Greece within the last week has bought four million or five million bushels of wheat in the United States. Great Britain has purchased all her wheat as a nation since the war and is doing so to-day. Lord Lee bought 180,000,000 bushels of wheat in the States last June. Why did he not buy here? Because we had no grain board to arrange credits with him for the purchase of such a large amount of grain. I say that by taking the deliberate action which they did the Agrarian group enabled the western grain speculators to sell wheat short in Chicago at from $2.80 to $3.00 a bushel, and then to kick the props from under the markets in the West and fill their orders with Canadian grain at $1.50. That touched the pockets of the farmers in the West, not the pockets of the grain operators or speculators there. Knowing as they did that the requirements of the British market were filled, and there would be no buying for six months or a year, they were the only people in the market and they put the wheat price down to the point I have stated, and their action cost the country about one hundred million dollars -perhaps I should not say it cost this country quite that amount, because I think some of these gentlemen got away with a lot of that money. I think we should have a commission to investigate who was at the bottom of selling out the western farmer and the eastern farmer. It has caused a lot of trouble to our agriculturists, and the gentlemen opposite very well know that they are being held responsible for the low prices by the farmers in the West.


Mr. McMASTER:: "Angularly opposite."


John Allister Currie: Yes. The hon. member for Brome, of course, did not put himself on record on this question. But the leader of the Agrarian group, I say, misled the country in that statement-whether he misled this House or not-when he said that there was no unified buying in Europe. There was unified buying in Europe. He said he was in favour of a wheat board if there was unified buying in Europe, and then he said there was not unified buying, therefore the inference is that he wanted an open market. There was unified buying in Europe at that time, and there is to-day. Somebody has been misled and we must place the onus where it belongs. Hon. gentlemen "angularly opposite" expressed

great perturbation at the suggestion that this commission of investigation should be appointed. I hope that the Government will have the courage to appoint it and find out who has been digging into the markets out there, 'who has been selling short, who has been getting the difference betweeen. the $8 and the $1.50 which the Western farmer got. I do not hesitate to say that if the wheat board had been in existence last June the whole Canadian crop could have been sold by the board at $3 a bushel. The attitude taken by the representatives, so-called, of the Western Agrarians, has cost the farmers of the West $100,000,000, and that will require a lot of explanation on the part of my hon. friends when they go to their constituencies in the West.


Michael Clark: I do not want to prolong this discussion; certainly I do not want to take up the extremely rash and unfounded statement of my hon. friend.


John Allister Currie: Now, I want a ruling, Mr. Chairman, because I have read the facts from Hansard, and I think I understand the English language as well as my hon. friend.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend cannot prove, nobody else can prove, that $100,000,000 has been lost to the farmers of the West. It passes human proof; it is purely a matter of opinion on the part of my hon. friend.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member to your right (Mr. Maharg) said so to-day.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend must open his ears, and to do that he needs sometimes to close his month. It is not usual in this House for two gentleman to talk at the same time. I want to point out to him that I listened with the utmost patience to what he said. I say now that neither he nor any person else can prove that the farmers lost $100,000,000 or any money at all by the dropping of the wheat board. I have given reasons for having believed that the prices of all agricultural products would drop within two years after the conclusion of the war. I, myself knew they would, because I have informed myself reasonably about the history of other wars and what happened when they were over. If I may be so personal, I may tell my hon. friend that in my little business on a farm in the West, which consists largely in the handling of cattle, I handled my cattle accordingly and sold them down

very largely, knowing that the high prices of the war would not continue. I have previously given my hon. friend the instance of the drop in eggs; I could do it in regard to butter. It happens in regard to every kind of agricultural produce and in my opinion it was sure to happen in regard to wheat whether you had the wheat'board or not. That is my opinion; my hon. friend holds a different view. I can tell him why agricultural produce falls, if he would like to know, and why it falls faster than manufactured goods do. Agricultural products cannot fall back upon the artificial aid of a tariff. That is why the farmers are the first hit. Yet I had to give $10 this morning for a pair of boots of a kind which I could have bought for $6 even after the war started. And so all along the line. I repeat that my hon. friend cannot prove-it is a matter of opinion-that the farmers of the West have lost $100,000,000. If they have, I want to say that there was nothing in the very careful and statesmanlike utterances of the hon. member from Marquette, which my hon. friend has read, to indicate that his attitude contributed in any degree to that loss. The Minister of Trade and Commerce will agree with me that the last and final responsibility for dropping the board for one year or carrying it on for another year rested with the Government of the day. The board was not suspended while Parliament was sitting; if my recollection is right, it was suspended after Parliament had prorogued. It was done by the Act of the Government. Now, it is not I, it is one of the followers of the Government, who says that the suspension of the board has cost the farmers of the West $100,000,000. If that be so, let him settle his charge with the minister whose Estimates are under discussion, who represents the Government for the moment; because he ought to realize by this time that his charge is directed, and directed solely, against the Government of the day. But if I could have proof of what my hon. friend believes so easily without proof, I certainly think he would have added an important reason for looking carefully into the votes that may arise during this session as to the advisability of keeping this Government in power a moment longer. Every question that comes up for a vote would be influenced mightily by a consideration such as my hon. friend has raised. I did not raise it; my hon. friend raised it. But I do want to

clear my hon. leader's reputation, if it needed it. His statements were of the most careful kind. And I want to tell my hon. friend something more: the wheat hoard has no existence in the political platform of the Dominion Council of Agriculture, the tariff platform which is the platform of this party. My hon. friend expresses great anxiety about how my hon. leader will clear himself with the farmers of the West when an election comes on. Well now, I really think there are parts of this House where there is more anxiety about what is going to happen when an election takes place than there is in the bosom of my leader. But in case my hon. friend is really and sincerely exercised about the chances of my hon. friend from Marquette in an election, let me assure him that he will be able to take care of himself among the farmers of the West, so far as I know anything about it.


John Allister Currie: Now, Mr. Chairman, we have heard the ipse dixit of the hon. gentleman; we all have to take our little licking from him. But he must have been asleep during the early part of this discussion, otherwise he would have heard the hon.' member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg), sitting on his right, make the statement that the loss was $100,000,000. I am only repeating hearsay; I do not know for a fact whether it was $100,000,000 or not. I do say, though, that this House, and I among the members of this House, have looked largely to the hon. member for Marquette for light and leading on this grain question. It is a national question, and a very serious one. When he made the statement in this House last year that he believed in a board, in national selling, as it were, when there was unified or national buying, and that there was no national buying, the inference was that it was his opinion that the board should be dissolved. At the very time he made that statement he must have known that the facts were entirely different. You cannot play fast and loose with the people all the time. But my hon. friend's information was wrong; his lack of knowledge in respect to the very question upon which he should have been informed has led this country to a loss of fully $100,000,000, as has been expressed by one of his own followers. For that reason, and as there is some difference of opinion as to the way in which the grain board, with which he is connected, functions, and
as there are questions that need to be asked of the grain board, I say again that the Government would be well justified in appointing a commission to go into this whole question and to fix the responsibility for the great loss which the country has sustained. We want to know the facts. The farmers to-day are not getting a better deal than they were getting before. The facts of the matter are simply these. There is just a small group selling fish, and they are calling everybody else's fish no good. They are dealing only in a particular brand of politics, and in view of the disastrous agrarian policies of Townley in North Dakota, which are of a similar character, this should lead this country seriously to investigate matters and ascertain whether the policies of the group represented by hon. gentlemen opposite are the best policies for the country, or whether they are only preaching socialism in a mild form. I have quoted the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), and his statement cannot be denied; I took it from Hansard; I took his word for it, and I think the Government took his word for it, because we knew if anybody should be interested in the farmers' affairs, he should. When we took his advice, we found that he was misinformed or he misled somebody deliberately, and the results have been disastrous to the farmers, so that if anybody is to blame for those results, he and his followers must be blamed.


Mr. DAVIS:: May I refer for a moment to an expression used by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), that is, as to unified buying? Last year I supported the Government in its policy as to the grain board. I thought it was wise that the Government should have the power to go on or to quit as, in its judgment and upon its responsibility, it decided. I think that probably was the position of the hon. member for Marquette. Unified buying at that time by Europe meant this, that all the buying was done by England and that the proceeds were distributed amongst the various countries in the order of their requirements. But that had ceased at the time we were discussing this, and instead there was buying by each country separately. One of the problems before the Government was this, that it must decide whether that buying by separate countries was going to offer a field or area of competition as would still give us prices that would justify us in opening the market. Apparently it did not entirely do that. I am, however, in-

dined to deal charitably with the Government with regard to its decision on that matter; but nevertheless the form of the term as used by the hon. member for Sim-coe North entirely (misplaces the judgment used by< the hon. member for Marquette with regard to the system of buying, and I think the latter's opinion was clearly understood at the time, although it may since have been forgotten by the House and, of course, by the country.


Levi Thomson: A quotation has been given from Hansard of a speech delivered by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). I see the quotation stops at a very convenient place to suit the purposes of the hon. gentleman who made it. Had he gone further, it would have knocked the foundation from his argument. I follow directly after what has been read:
While during the years of the war the Royal Commission on wheat supplies in London had the practical control of the buying of wheat, and other cereals for that matter, since the Armistice has been signed the various count tries in Europe have each organized its own government buying agency. At least, this is very largely the case ; some of the neutral countries are getting back to old conditions of trade. Every one who knows anything of the European situation must realize that conditions there are very unstable, and in these circumstances I think, perhaps, there is justification for the Government assuming the power which they are asking for under this legislation.
If you take that altogether, the action of the Government had not the opposition at least of the hon. member for Marquette; it had his support. More than that, I think I am right in saying that, when the matter came before the House, there was not a single vote in opposition to it, certainly not by the hon. member for Marquette. If he had been opposed to it, he would have so voted, because we know the hon. member for Marquette is not in the least afraid to say what he thinks-if all the rest of the House were just as ready to give expression to their opinions as he has been, whether that helps or hurts him, the House would be conducted in a different way from what it is. Let me repeat what was said by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). At the time this House prorogued the power for which the Government had asked was in their hands; they had enabling legislation to do what was required. They decided themselves, with that enabling legislation before them. Almost as soon as they got rid of Parliament, they decided that they would not have anything to do .
with the wheat board, and on them the responsibility rests.


John Archibald Maharg: The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Yien) stated that the organization of a board of control of any kind, or words to that effect, was a vicious principle.


Thomas Vien: May I take the liberty of correcting my hon. friend? I did not say the organization of a board of any kind; I said the organization of a wheat board under the provisions of the statute enacted for that purpose, as the statute reads.


John Archibald Maharg: I am quite prepared to accept the statement, but that does not affect the point that I wish to raise. The hon. member wished to know at whose instigation this was brought about, or words to that effect. The impression that his remarks would leave on the House is that the farmers themselves asked for control in the matter of the marketing of wheat. I believe that is a fair inference to draw from his remarks.


Thomas Vien: Yes.


John Archibald Maharg: The original control in the fixing of price for the marketing of Canada's wheat during the war was never asked for by the farmers at all.


Thomas Vien: Could the hon. member inform me who instigated the organization of the wheat board?


John Archibald Maharg: It is not the question of the wheat board I am touching now; it is the original action of the Government in taking control of the marketing of wheat, -the wheat board is an after-consideration. The original control that was taken was not asked for by the farmers at all at any time; in fact, the opposite was the case. The minister himself will remember very well that when the original action was taken he asked that representatives of the western farmers should meet him in conference in this city, and we did so. And he will also remember that I opposed this action very strenuously unless he was prepared to take similar action in regard to the necessities that enter into the production of the grain, that is, to take control of the price the farmer should pay for his implements of production, his labour and so on. If they were going to control the price he was to receive, it was only fair that they should, in a measure, control the price it would cost him to produce.

The minister will remember that was my attitude. The point is, the Government having taken control, having stepped in, having broken down the organization, credits and such like, and having established that control, we believed in all fairness, some method of control should be continued. We did not ask the Government to appoint the wheat board. Committees from this House waited on the Minister of Finance from time to time, and they did not state any definite opinion whatever, but they asked him to institute some measure of control over wheat. This was absolutely refused. The question of the wheat board, however, is' an after-consideration and only arose out of conditions that had been created by the Government stepping in and taking control in the first place. Just where the instigation came from I am not prepared to say, and I am not objecting to it at all, but I believe it came from the allied countries in order that they might get control of the distribution of wheat. In fact, the chairman of the wheat executive in London told me there were only two reasons for it, one being to get control of the wheat and the other to keep the price down.


Thomas Vien: What was the nature of Government control before the institution of the wheat board?


John Archibald Maharg: Government control previous to the institution of the wheat board was under the Board of Grain Supervisors. I have already referred to their turning in $350,000 to the Government as a surplus from their operations. That board was discontinued.


Thomas Vien: How did it exercise control?


John Archibald Maharg: They fixed the price- the price of $2.20 per bushel for the wheat produced by the farmers all over this country.


Thomas Vien: Was it illegal to ask any higher amount?


John Archibald Maharg: Yes. They had absolute control over everything in regard to the fixing of prices and the disposition and direction of the grain. They had practically the same control as the wheat board.


Thomas Vien: That was vicious too.


John Archibald Maharg: I am not going to say whether it was vicious or not, but I might say that we did not ask for it. It is a matter of opinion whether if was vicious
or not, but we are not considering that question at the present time.


Thomas Vien: I am glad to hear that the hon. gentleman was opposed to the wheat board.


John Archibald Maharg: No, the hon. gentleman cannot put those words into my mouth at all. I was opposed to original control of the wheat in any manner, shape or form. We did not ask for it in any shape whatever, but when the Government stepped in and took control, we believed that in all fairness they should continue when they had broken down the organization that had formerly been used, more particularly when control buying continues in the Old Country. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for North Simcoe state that there was still controlled buying in the Old Country, for his leader (Mr. Meighen) when he was speaking in Saskatoon, gave as a reason for discontinuing the wheat board, the absence of controlled buying in Great Britain. What the leader of the Agrarian party said was absolutely right. There was no unified buying; that requires two parties, and there were no two parties buying jointly. But there was controlled buying in Great Britain and the allied countries, and there is to-day, although there was no unified buying at the time our leader made that statement, nor is there to-day. It is controlled buying that is in existence to-day by the governments of the different countries. It is the hon. member for North Simcoe's leader who will have the explaining to do and not the leader of our group.


Walter Davy Cowan: Do I understand the hon. member for Maple Creek to mean that it was his desire that the Government should have continued to advance credits to foreign countries to buy our wheat last year and this?


John Archibald Maharg: If any such inference could be drawn from my remarks, that was not what I intended. That thought never entered my mind.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The point that I intended to make has been brought out so well by the hon. member for Red Deer that I shall merely call the attention of the minister to it again. I refer to the loss by this country last year of $100,000,000 of money. That amounts to $12.50 per head of our population. That much was lost at one fell swoop by some one's blundering. The establishment of the wheat board and wheat control was a matter of

policy on the part of the Government. First the Government got control buying through an agency which the hon. member for Maple Creek mentioned, then they established the wheat board. Both institutions were created as a matter of policy on the part of the Government. Then, later on, as a matter of policy the Government discontinued the wheat board. They said: We have come to the stage where the wheat board should be abolished. That again is a matter of policy for which the Government is entirely responsible. I was surprised to see the disloyalty, if I may use the word, of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) this afternoon. He always votes for this Government, always stands by them when it is to his political advantage to do so, but to-day he tells the Government: You lost the country $100,000,000 of cold cash last year.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman is putting words into my mouth I did not use. and is drawing inferences from what 1 said which are not justified. I did not make any such statement, or even imply it What I said was that we took our light and leading from the Grain Growers group and that we were misled; that was all.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is a most
humiliating confession to make, that this Government, with twenty ministers, and agents and sources of information all over the country, did not themselves know what was the proper thing to do, but took a sort of sidelight, a remark that was not very definite that was delivered by some private member of the House, because that is all the hon. member for Marquette was. My hon. friend from Simcoe says that he swallowed that advice hook, line, and sinker, as the saying is, and passed it on to the Government, and that childish simple-minded aggregation thereupon inaugurated a policy that lost this country $100,000,000. And the extraordinary thing is that the hon. member for North Simcoe now says in all solemnity that a commission must be appointed by this Government to investigate why the Government themselves blundered and bungled the affairs of this country to the extent of $100,000,000. He does not realize the full force and effect of what he says. If he is right and the Government has bungled to the extent of this immense amount of money, the Government must take the responsibility, and the appeal must be to Caesar, and not to any commission.


John Allister Currie: I again protest against the hon. member putting words into my mouth or drawing inferences that are not justified- I said it was time that we had a commission to investigate the Grain Growers Grain Company and similar groups that were very much interested in seeing that wheat fell from $3 to $1.50 per bushel. They are the people who should be investigated.


Oliver Robert Gould: There is no such company to my knowledge as the Grain Growers' Grain Company.


John Allister Currie: I may have made a single mistake.


Oliver Robert Gould: Lots of them.


John Allister Currie: They have changed their name so often. It is now the North West Trading Company? They have had about sixteen different names.


Mr. FIELDING:: Almost as bad as the Conservative party.


John Archibald Maharg: The question of the name does not matter at the moment. My hon. friend from North Simcoe, in the course of his remarks said that we were very much concerned over the possible appointment of this commission. Now I made my position clear on that a few days ago when this matter came up in the House- I said that we would welcome an investigation, and that so far as our company was concerned we would render the commission every possible assistance. Our objection is to the possible personnel of the commission. If a commission is going to be appointed, we want one that can do something, and that will take a little more action than the present commission has done which has every authority to do what this proposed commission will likely be called upon to do, if appointed. We want a commission that will be entirely independent of any other commission now in existence; and, I repeat so far as we are concerned we will give them every possible assistance, and it may be considerable too, when the opportunity is afforded to disclose some of the things that have been going on.


George Eulas Foster: It rather strikes me after careful observation that we have pretty well exhausted this line of argument, and I am going to suggest to the committee that we now turn our attention to the work that is before us and show our good intention, in the first place, by passing this item.


Thomas Vien: I should first like to inquire from what quarter came the request for the establishment of wheat control and the fixing of a maximum price for wheat?


George Eulas Foster: That is a very important question and as my memory is not in the very best order at the present moment, perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to take it into consideration and to give him an answer some of these days.
Mr, VIEN: That is very vague. I am afraid that if we let the item pass, I shall not get the answer until the Greek calends. The minister has on many occasions given evidence of a very retentive memory, and if he would jog his mind a bit I think he could easily recollect how it happened that the Canadian Government stepped into the wheat marketing business and undertook the establishment of wheat control and a maximum price. He may desire to rush the voting of this item, but I think he might make an effort to recall this thing.


George Eulas Foster: We are not
rushing much, are we?


Thomas Vien: How is the increase of $175,000 in salaries, due to the reclassification, going to affect the bonus paid these employees?


George Eulas Foster: I do not quite understand my hon. friend.


Thomas Vien: I will try to make it clear even if it takes a minute or two. Last year and the year before we voted a bonus to civil servants to meet the high cost of living. It was then understood that when the reclassification came into effect this bonus would in all probability be discontinued. I see now that the reclassification calls for an extra expenditure of $175,000 in salaries in this branch of the administration. What will be the policy of the department regarding the bonus in view of this increase?


George Eulas Foster: The reclassification, as my hon. friend knows, affected all departments, and the bonus likewise applies throughout the Civil Service. The statement has already been made that the Government purposes this year to reduce the bonus by 25 per cent, and that, of course, will apply to this as to other departments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maintenance of Terminal Elevators and necessary equipment, $10,000.
['The reclassification, as my hon. friend knows, affected all departments, and the bonus likewise applies throughout the Civil Service. The statement has already been made that the Government purposes this year to reduce the bonus by 25 per cent, and that, of course, will apply to this as to other departments.']
John Archibald Maharg: How is this money to be applied? Is it for the upkeep of elevators, for improvements in plant, and so forth?


George Eulas Foster: This is a very small vote which we have taken from year to year to be applied to capital account, if, for instance, new machinery is to be added, such as drying or cleaning plant.


John Archibald Maharg: I want to ask another question regarding the previous item. I was about to ask it when the chairman declared the item carried. We made provision during the last session for a certain amount of surpluses at terminal elevators being taken. Has any action been taken by the Government in that respect and have any returns come in from those surpluses over and above the actual grain which the elevators were supposed to have taken in?


George Eulas Foster: You refer to overages?


John Archibald Maharg: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. member will recollect that Parliament passed, either last year or the year before, an amendment by which the elevators are allowed a certain percentage, the rest of it coming into the consolidated revenue fund. That has been carried out.


John Archibald Maharg: Why should these
surpluses go into the consolidated revenue? This money, as well as some $350,000 of a surplus in connection with the operations of the Board of Grain Supervisors, has gone into the consolidated revenue. Why should it not be applied to the administration of the Act? This is what we had in mind when we requested that the overages over a certain amount be taken. While I am speaking about overages, it might be interesting to the House to know that when we took the overages away from the houses, the Board of Grain Commissioners immediately turned round and gave them an additional increase in elevating charges, which practically recouped them for everything they had lost in the way of overages. Now, that is a very significant fact. That increase was opposed by farmers' companies, but in the face of that opposition, the grain commission granted a rise of one half cent a bushel, which, on the whole handling of grain, amounts to approximately the total amount of money the different elevator companies received from their overages in previous years.


William Stevens Fielding: Is my right hon. friend correct when he describes this as a vote on capital account? It is not capital account in the ordinary sense in which we use the word in the Estimates.


George Eulas Foster: No. In the first place, the elevators were built by a vote of Parliament. A vote was made for construction of elevators; and, so far as new construction is concerned, the capital account has been brought almost to a close. But we have had a small vote each year to provide for additional machinery. After that, the operating expenses come out of revenue. The expenditure has been very small. In 1919-1920, it was only $895; in 1920-21, to January 31, it was about $6,000, owing to addition of new machinery.


William Stevens Fielding: The words "capital account" do not, in the Estimates, mean quite the same thing as they do in the sense in which the minister uses them. This is capital account as respects that particular transaction, but it is not chargeable to capital in the sense in which we use the word in the Estimates.


George Eulas Foster: It is for the maintenance of necessary equipment.


John Archibald Maharg: The minister did not answer my direct question in regard to surplus overages. Has any money been collected from that source?


George Eulas Foster: That question has reference to the vote we have just passed. I will look up the information and get it for my hon. friend before we are through with the Estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trade Commissioners and Commercial Agents, including salaries, travelling expenses, contingencies and other expenditure in connection therewith, $230,000.
['That question has reference to the vote we have just passed. I will look up the information and get it for my hon. friend before we are through with the Estimates.']
Charles Gavan Power: May I ask what new
Trade Commissioners have been appointed since last year and where they are located?


George Eulas Foster: During the
current year G. E. Short was appointed to Rotterdam, Holland, and Mr. E. L. McCall to Rio Janeiro, Brazil. The latter is a new appointment. I think we have not heretofore had a Trade Commissioner in Brazil. These are the only new appointments that have been made during the current year.


William Stevens Fielding: Was there no trade
agent at Rotterdam before?


George Eulas Foster: We had one at Rotterdam many years ago and afterwards at Antwerp. During the war there was no agent at either place, but the office was kept open with a clerk there in charge in order to answer enquiries and preserve continuity as it were. This is a new appointment to Holland, and Rotterdam is the headquarters of the trade commissioners.


Samuel William Jacobs: Have these officials passed an examination by the Civil Service Commission?


George Eulas Foster: Yes; the appointments are under the Civil Service Commission.


Samuel William Jacobs: And do these men possess the necessary linguistic qualifications?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, so far as we could get them. That is a necessary thing. We make it a point as far as we possibly can that appointees to certain countries while passing through their period of probation here shall acquire the language of the country to which they go. In this case Mr. Short does not possess a knowledge of the Dutch language, but has a fair knowledge of French. You cannot in all cases get that linguistic requirement, but in most cases we make it an absolute necessity. For instance our commissioner to Brazil is familiar with the Spanish language and is fairly conversant with Portuguese, in which languages he will make himself more proficient. Our trade commissioner in Japan is a master of the Japanese language. I should not, perhaps, say a master of it, but he was born in Japan, as it happens, and during his school days, and ever since, has studied the language and has a good colloquial grasp of it.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is he a British citizen?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: Who is the commissioner
to the Fiji Islands?


George Eulas Foster: We have not
appointed anybody there.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, we have a commissioner of some kind in the Fiji Islands?


George Eulas Foster: No, not a Canadian Trade Commissioner.


Joseph Archambault: Is there not a
gentleman there by the name of Catellier?


George Eulas Foster: As trade commissioner?


Joseph Archambault: Yes. In the
Fiji Islands.
, Sir GEORGE FOSTER: No.


Charles Gavan Power: This gentleman was certainly appointed to the Fiji Islands in some commercial capacity. I would like to know if he speaks the language used there, whatever it may be?


George Eulas Foster: The hon. member will have to accept my statement that we have not appointed a trade commissioner.


Samuel William Jacobs: He may have been eaten
by the natives.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend could go there with perfect safety; they stopped the practice of cannibalism some time ago.


John Allister Currie: This should not be a matter of jest at all, because Canada does a lot of business with the Fiji Islands. Orders from there are now coming in fast, and there is quite a large trade growing up.


Samuel William Jacobs: What do we supply to the Fiji Islands?


John Allister Currie: General merchandise.


George Eulas Foster: We get a considerable amount of sugar from the Fiji Islands.


Samuel William Jacobs: I suppose we supply the natives with clothing?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, they require some.	.
Mr.	THOMSON	(Qu'Appelle)	:	How
many trade agents are there altogether?


George Eulas Foster: At the present time there are twenty-four trade commissioners.
Mr.	THOMSON	(Qu'Appelle):	How
many are there in the United States?


George Eulas Foster: Not one.
Mr.	THOMSON	(Qu'Appelle)	:	How
does the hon. gentleman explain that	state
of affairs? When practically half of our trade is with the United States why have we not some one looking after our trade there ?


George Eulas Foster: I made rather an extended explanation about this matter the other day, and I can refer my hon. friend to the statements appearing in Hansard. I may say, however, that the main reason is this: We have never adopted the policy of placing our trade commissioners
in the United States, the two countries lying so close to each other, and the knowledge by one or the other of markets or marketing conditions being so easy to obtain, and being so generally well distributed. Access to either country is possible in a few hours, and there is a vast amount of intercommunication between the two countries. Neither this Government, nor any of the Governments which preceded it, has ever thought that it was necessary to extend through the United States our trade commissionership propaganda, but we have placed trade commissioners in more distant fields, where in the course of time, we knew our foreign commerce would extend with the idea of affording information and providing facilities for such expansion. The trade commissionership policy of the country has been a progressive one. It commenced really from nothing, or, more properly speaking, began with very few commissioners and involved but very little expense. It takes money to carry on this work on an extensive scale. Development has been carried on progressively as it was thought the necessity arose, and as we could provide reasonable means for carrying out the work. There are people who take the other view, that it would be well for us to place trade commissioners in the United States. If we commenced that policy it would require a large number of commissioners to cover the whole territory, and then the matter of expense comes in. The first question is as to whether it is necessary, and then there is the question of cost. I may say that the subject is engaging the attention of myself and my department, and probably before the session is over I will have an opportunity of speaking further with reference to it.


Samuel William Jacobs: Before the war they had a system in Germany and Austria under which men well-known in commercial life were appointed to act as a sort of advisory board to the ministry. Has the Minister of Trade and Commerce ever considered the question of similar action along those lines?	f


George Eulas Foster: Yes, I myself have considered the matter as to whether it would be possible to have an honorary board of advisors from different parts of the country. There is something to be said for it, and there is something also to be said, probably, on the other side. In a way we are getting advise though we have no formal board. Our department is in communication with all the Boards of



Trade, and with all the important centres of industrial trade acitivity. We are getting constant advice, and we are trying to give information on the basis of that advice. If my hon. friend were to see the correspondence which passes in the course of a month in the department I think he would he surprised at its diversity and volume. We are in touch with every quarter of the Dominion through its prominent business men and business and industrial organizations. Outside of that we have an excellent publication, the Bulletin, which we send to no one who does not apply for it and feels that it is necessary and useful to him. Our circulation in that way has gradually grown until now we have a live bona fide circulation of between eight thousand and nine thousand. We get commendation from our business communities as to its usefulness. In many ways it is utilized in a manner that we had not thought of. For instance, many school teachers use the Bulletin for lessons in geography and commerce and make those lessons of live interest to their pupils. Generally the policy which has been adopted is that our trade commissioners must pass from one to two and a half years in the work of the department before they are sent out into the field, and that work familiarizes them with the kind of information which they should gather. After their training in the departmental office we have those student trade commissioners travel through the country to examine the various industries and report to us thereon, and so make themselves fully acquainted with what is being produced, the way in which it is produced and the cost of its production. In these ways we seek to give them a training to equip them for their work, and with a knowledge of the language of the country to which they are assigned, which is the case in most of our appointments, these trade commissioners are able to do very efficient work. In short, I think we have a really good class of men who are rendering valuable services to our manufacturing industries.
The committee rose, and the House resumed.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 6, to incorporate The General Synod of the Church of England in Canada.-Mr. Cronyn.

Bill No. 34, respecting The London and Lake Erie Railway and Transportation Company.-Mr. Glass.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 43, to incorporate Standard Insurance Company.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 44, respecting The Western Dominion Railway Company.-Mr. Morphy.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When- the committee rose at six o'clock we were considering the . Estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. We had reached and debated item number 358, concerning trade commissioners. Shall this item now carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Development and extension of Canadian trade, including exhibits and publicity, negotiations of treaties, miscellaneous advertising and print-ting, or other expenditure in connection therewith, $100,000.
Mr. CAHILL:: Does this item cover
foreign exhibitions?


George Eulas Foster: No. Exhibitions are really under the Department of the Interior. In this are involved certain small exhibits in connection with our trade commissioners' offices as illustrating the products of Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: What are the principal items of the expenditure?


George Eulas Foster: The principal items of expenditure are in connection with the Exhibits and Publicity Branch, the work of which I explained the other night. In the Exhibits Branch we have articles from different countries which are tabulated and priced for the information of any manufacturers in Canada who may feel that we could supply any of those particular articles. The work is in its initial stage, and we shall see in the course of a little while what good really comes from it. Some good results, however, have already been obtained, and we feel that it will be of benefit to the manufacturing industries in connection with the supplying to other countries of articles similar to those exhibited. The Publicity Branch handles the film operations, which are very interesting and are a very valuable development in connection with publicity. At the Bureau of Exhibits on Wellington and Bank streets we have an equipment for the taking of pictures, the development of the films and their distribution. The work done there can-

not be excelled, I think, by any of the establishments engaged in that kind of manufacture. Our purpose is to give to the outside world a picture of our productive capacity, our natural resources, and so on; and we make the film story interesting by weaving in bits of scenery expressive of our natural scenic resources. These films are being distributed through a large number of the countries with which we are dealing now and with which we hope to deal. One of our pictures, for instance, that which depicts the water powers of Canada, is a very valuable one and has been exhibited in Great Britain and in the United States with profit in the actual realization of a great deal of business. Our agricultural film depicts the work of the settler, his coming into the Northwest, building his shack, beginning his operations, tilling his field and reaping his harvest. Then the movement of the grain is shown from the field to the elevator, thence to the cars and to the point of shipment to foreign countries. This very interesting film is a type of the many that we produce. Films illustrating manufacturing processes and activities are shown, in connection with fishing, logging, the manufacture of pulp from pulp-wood, forestry work, and so on, and the legends include statistics with respect to the particular resources dealt with. For instance, if it is water-powers, the available water-power is stated, the horse-power already developed, the capabilities of further development, and so on. These films are being so distributed that the distribution really costs nothing, and in fact, has now begun to bring us in a revenue. When I was in Great Britain two years ago I arranged a contract with one of the most prominent film exhibitors there, Sir William F. Jury, and he was so well pleased with the original films that he is taking a new film from us almost every month He puts them through his regular circuit and a certain percentage of the proceeds comes to Canada. We have been doing work in the film line for other departments. We have done some work for the Canadian National Railways which they would otherwise have had done elsewhere; so in that way we try to keep our staff employed and to make as large as possible the income Which is set against everhead expenses. During the latter half of the last year we did work for the departments to the amount of $8,559. We have now a large list of these motion pictures which have been taken and distributed. The total of the revenue up to January 81, 1921, is $11,875.
93i


William Stevens Fielding: For the current year.


George Eulas Foster: No, from the time they began distributing these pictures, probably about fourteen or fifteen months in all. In the United States these are distributed and are shown to probably two or three million people weekly, who see them through the pictures of current events. They also have been distributed in like manner in New Zealand, Australia and South Africa, and we are having the legends printed now in other languages so that they may be distributed in other countries as well- They were exhibited in France during the time of the Lyons Fair and at Paris when we had our exhibition there. This serves a double purpose. It stimulates trade; it excites curiosity as to our natural resources; but it also does a good deal of the best of work for our Immigration Department. It was a personal experience that I had at Paris and at the Lyons Fair. The city of Lyons set apart one of their large halls for the exhibition of our films, and we exhibited them there in the afternoons and in the evenings. The hall was crowded all the time, and it was very gratifying to see the interest that the people took in the pictures and to hear the remarks which they made in reference to them. The same thing occurred at Paris where we exhibited these pictures for about three months, where schools and colleges made expeditions at certain hours to see them, where the general public also came in, and where I had an opportunity of having them viewed by all the staffs and members of the countries represented at the Peace Conference, to whom I sent personal letters inviting them to come at certain times, so that we got a very wide publicity in that respect in reference to our resources and other features of interest.


Mr. DENIS:: What amount was expended last year on these pictures out of the appropriation of $130,000?


George Eulas Foster: Up to January 31, about $86,000. We have reduced the appropriation $30,000 this year.


Frank S. Cahill: What amount was expended on account of negotiations of treaties, and was any amount expended in connection with the proposed treaty with the West Indies?


George Eulas Foster: Out of this appropriation we paid the expenses which were incurred by the meeting here. We provided the hall without expense; we met in the museum, and we took care of the

delegates while they were here. With the co-operation of the Board of Trade and the citizens of Ottawa, we gave them as good a social time as we could. We also paid the small printing expenses.


Frank S. Cahill: What was the amount of the item?


George Eulas Foster: I have not seen the bills that are in. A very small amount comparatively.


Mr. ROSS:: I notice from the right hon. gentleman's report that a preferential tariff has been extended by Australia to the United Kingdom and there is some little temporary agreement between Australia and South Africa giving South Africa a tariff preference also. The right hon. gentleman's report says that "the Canadian Government is now considering an exchange of views with the Australian authorities in the hope that the trade relations between the two countries may be improved." This report is dated 1st June, 1920. What has occurred in connection with these negotiations, and what success or failure have they had?


George Eulas Foster: South Africa received a small preference in the Australian market on a very limited number of goods, and I think South Africa gave three or five per cent preference on a certain^ limited number of Australian goods. That is the only preference that Australia has given other than to the United Kingdom. In Australia they undertook, about two years ago now, a revision of the tariff. I am not going back beyond that because I suppose my hon. friend knows what took place before that. There have been negotiations for the extension of preference between the two countries, but they have never resulted in an actual preference being given in either case, there being several reasons for this. The Government which at present exists in Australia, when it came into power, undertook a revision of the tariff. In March, 1920, it brought down a resolution which was the basis upon which was to be founded a Bill and an Act, but the Bill itself has not yet been framed and passed by the legislature; only the resolution holds, and the Government is acting under the resolution. By that resolution Australia gave a preference to British goods, but gave no preference to any other outside dominion or dependency of Great Britain, but in the resolution she contemplated, after the legislation was completed, opening negotiations with Canada and New Zealand for preference be-

tween herself and those countries. As I have said, the Bill is still being discussed, and the latest advices that I have is that probably it will be autumn of this year before it is finally passed. Whilst I have been keeping in close touch, personally and otherwise, the answer has been invariably this: "When that Bill becomes law, we shall have our legislation, and we shall be very glad to take the matter up with you and see if we can arrange for a preference between these countries." In the meantime the present condition is that Australia made material additions to her tariff along protective lines, gave to Great Britain a fairly good preference on her products as Australia imported them, but has no other preferential arrangements either made or under negotiation. That is the situation as it is to-day, so that our manufactures going into Australia, if they are of a quality or kind like those that come from Great Britain, go in under the general tariff while the British goods go in on a basis of preference.


William Stevens Fielding: We do not give Australia a preference?


George Eulas Foster: No, we have never been successful in getting an arrangement.


James Hamilton Ross: Suppose this Bill is passed by Australia, what do they propose doing as far as the Dominions are concerned? What reciprocal arrangements are suggested?


George Eulas Foster: There are none suggested by the Australian Government. There is simply in the resolution I have spoken of power to enter into negotiations for a preference, but there is no proposition, and there are no negotiations. The answer I invariably get is that as soon as this Bill becomes law they will take the matter up with us.


James Hamilton Ross: The Bill will empower them to make any arrangements they please?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: We had a partial arrangement with Australia at one time. At the beginning of the preferential arrangement my recollection is that we extended the preference to New South Wales, which was at that time a low tariff colony, but we did not extend it to Victoria, which was not a low tariff colony. When the colonies were united in the Commonwealth of Australia, the tariff generally got a lift up, and from that time forward we did

not give a preference to any part of Australia. That is the present condition, I assume.


George Eulas Foster: We are not
giving a preference to any of the states in Australia.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite understand
that, because when the colonies united and had a common tariff, that tariff being not as advantageous to Canada as the tariff of New South Wales had been, we ceased to give a preference to any of them.


George Eulas Foster: Does my hon. friend refer to the first legislation of 1897?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: That was the legislation, if I remember rightly, under which Canada gave a preference to any country whose tariff came within a certain limit. That might have applied to New South Wales, but when the main preference came in, none was given to Australia.


Mr. McDERMAND:: Will any part of
this vote or any other item in the Estimates be used to promote trade within our own Dominion?


George Eulas Foster: No, this vote is for the encouragement of foreign trade, but we cannot, I suppose, very well promote trade with outside countries without it having a reflex action on ours. This vote is not for any such purpose as my hon. friend has in mind. The different provinces interchange their goods, producers trade with consumers, and we do not by this vote, or any other vote in the way of subsidy or monetary encouragement, strive to aid that process of merchandising.


Sydney Smith McDermand: I understand that Mr. Hoover, who was Food Controller in the United States, is very anxious to develop trade within the borders of that country, and I was in hopes that our Department of Trade and Commerce might be able to do something along that line, especially with respect to fruit. I had in mind aid to our growers in finding a market for their fruit. There is a great demand for fruit, but thousands of barrels of apples and smaller fruits go to waste every year owing to the scarcity of labour and of containers. We are not able to get this fruit on the market in bulk form, and I had hoped that the department might aid in finding a ready market for these perishable fruits. I think it would be a great
benefit to the consumers in all the large centres. The high-priced containers certainly mean a higher price for the fruit to the consumer, but if the department could co-operate so that this fruit could be shipped in bulk or in sacks it would reach the consumer at a much lower price. Owing to the scarcity of labour in the rural districts and especially in the fruit growing districts, aid of this sort would be of great benefit to the consumer.


George Eulas Foster: The different
industries, the fruit industry, for example, are helped by the work of this department. The fruit industry i6 helped by the work of the department in gaining an entrance for it and in developing its distribution in foreign countries. It would be a wonderfully complex piece of business if we undertook here, in this Dominion, to aid the producers in any one section of the province to get their articles into another section or from one province into another province. That opens up a vista of a very [DOT] great deal of complexity and expense. I think for a considerable time, maybe always, our internal trade will have to look after itself in so far as the transportation and representation of its products is concerned in other parts of the Dominion. The Statistical Branch of my department is doing a great deal of valuable work towards making the people of this Dominion acquainted with what is produced in different sections, its quality, quantity, price, and the like of that. Those parts of the country which do not produce a particular kind of article get that information, and that in itself is quite a large measure of aid and stimulus towards internal marketing. There is nothing in this item for the purpose my hon. friend speaks of, nor do I think anything will be voted along that line.


Sydney Smith McDermand: I was lead to bring this matter up by a speech I read of the Minister of Finance delivered to the Retail Merchants' Association, from which I will quote only a short extract:
Canada's chief claim to prosperity is as an agricultural country. There is no doubt of that. Does it look well for an agricultural country to be buying its agricultural products from abroad? Are we city people fair to our farmer ' cousins? Are we trying to see the home market retained for our own farmers as we should? Does it not seem strange that in a country like this, with such a climate, that for the nine months ending December 21 last we imported if27,000,000 worth of fruits, fresh and canned,

from the United States? What is the matter with the Canadian apple? Obviously something must be wrong somewhere. During the nine month period referred to we imported 198,000 barrels, three boxes to the barrel, with our own apples rotting by the thousand on the ground. Whatever it is which is wrong must be mended.
Having read that, and having had some experience in this matter, I felt that there was a great and needless waste of fruit in Ontario when there should be a ready market in our large centres and in the West; for we all know the food value of the apple. Now, we made an attempt last fall to ship apples through to Winnipeg in bulk and not in any container, and we discovered that this could be quite successfully done, although I think there is room for great improvement. We understand that in the Niagara district a large corporation has been formed and the Ontario Government has guaranteed the salary of an officer for the coming year to supervise the work that is to be carried on. If we could secure real co-operation on the part of the Department of Trade and Commerce in the way of advertising and so on, not only the producers generally, but the consumers in the large centres, would be greatly benefited. The consumers are very desirous of getting this fruit as cheaply as possible, and we are equally anxious to dispose of it at reasonable prices. So that the co-operation of the department along this line would, no doubt, meet with the approval of both consumers and producers.


George Eulas Foster: I think my hon. friend has about struck the point in the last sentence or two. If there is one section of the community that has a large product which it wants to get rid of, and there is another community somewhere at a distance that has both the capacity and the desire for this product, then there is room and there is need for co-operative effort. Some organization is obviously required to bring supply and demand together. But my hon. friend must remember that some of the departments are doing a good deal in this direction. For instance, take the Department of Agriculture, among the different branches of which is the fruit department. If my hon. friend will study its reports, or listen to its minister, he will find out that the department is doing a great deal to promote the consumption of fruit and other products. And the Marine Department has also done something to encourage the consumption of fish by establishing a fish day. After they have succeeded in firmly establishing the habit of observing one fish day, 
I suppose a second such day will follow. By this means, the consumption of fish ought to be greatly increased. Some years ago I put on a campaign to aid the-fruit industry, advising everyone to eat an apple every morning. A very successful advertising scheme was carried out and a great many apples were eaten that would otherwise have been wasted. That, however, was not a settled policy. After all, the industry itself must look out for its own avenues for customers and transport, and under this vote my department does not in any way contribute to that business.


Sydney Smith McDermand: I may give the
minister a concrete example of the cost to the consumer and it will show that something is needed. Perhaps I am appealing to the wrong department, but if the Department of Agriculture is properly charged with the responsibility for a matter of this, kind, I trust it will give it some attention. We loaded cars on the Canadian Pacific railway last fall with bulk apples, hand picked, at $1.30 per hundred. The freight on these apples into Winnipeg amounted to $1 per hundred, which meant a cost of $2.30 per hundred landed there. These same apples were then retailed at $1.85 per fourty-pound sack, and the people came and bought them, at the car, paying something like $4,621 per hundred. Someone was thus making a profit of about $2.30, which seems to me to be too much of a spread if business is to be successfully carried on. Now, we feel that if we could be put into closer touch with the consumer, it would benefit us both. 1 am sorry if I am appealing to the wrong department; but, I repeat, I hope something will be done, either through an advertising campaign or by some other effective means, to secure closer co-operation and communication between consumer and producer.


Mr. DECHENE :: We export lai'ge quantities of butter and cheese every year to the United States and Great Britain. What is the department doing to extend this trade?


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend sets me a pretty large task if I am to tell him all that the department has done in the interest of trade. I do not think he quite means that I should give a lecture that would occupy the time which it would take for me to recount the operations of the department. As regards butter and cheese, neither of these is a product which has come to light within the last few days, or even within the last few years. The cheese industry of Canada established its

reputation in Great Britain decades ago, and it does not require anything in particular more than to keep up the standard. If possible, we should strive to improve the quality of our butter and cheese, and everything advisable in this respect is being done by the Department of Agriculture which looks after our butter and cheese and the dairying business to ensure that quality is maintained. If that is done, the market having been once opened, the demand created, the taste for these articles cultivated, and their reputation thoroughly established, trade must do the rest. My hon. friend, of course, does not think that we can go further than that. We cannot transport these products or open warehouses for their sale; that does not come within the scope of the department's activities. But we have, by the collection and distribution of information, done all we can to further the industry. The same applies to other articles.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, in taking my seat this evening, I promised the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce that I would furnish my humble contribution to the evening's debate by making a few remarks in French.
We know and it gives us much pleasure to acknowledge it, that he is about the only scholar within the Cabinet and that he alone together with one of his colleagues, the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), may pay themselves the compliment of knowing and speaking French. We congratulate him. I wish to prove to him this evening that we appreciate his work, by taking up an industry that interests the whole country. Every year we export about $50,000,000 worth of butter, cheese, condensed milk and cream. In reading over the official statements which are placed at our disposal, the right hon. Minister will no doubt recall to his memory that we export to England at the very most between $10,000,000 and $12,000,000 annuah-ly of butter and cheese. According to the reports of the Department of Agriculture, we are one of the smallest exporters of butter and cheese to England. As a matter of fact, only France and Belgium, I believe, export less butter and cheese to England than we do. I can easily anticipate the right,hon. Minister's answer that it is up to the Department of Agriculture to look after that end; but on the other hand, what benefit do we derive from the Ministry of Trade and Commerce, if all the other departments not only take care of the production but also attend to the foreign marketing of their respective products. Such being the case, there would be no need for a Deparment of Trade and Commerce. This is perhaps a truth known to everybody, yet no one dares utter it in public.
I am perfectly of the opinion of the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he tells us that the Department of Agriculture sees to the production of butter and cheese. I know that the hon. Minister of Agriculture personally gives to it much of his valuable time and energy. In order to ascertain the quality of his products each year in either one or another of the provinces of this country, he organizes fairs at which all the provinces are invited to exhibit their choicest products. Last year, or rather a little more than a year ago, one of those large exhibitions was held in Winnipeg, and Quebec carried olf a fifth prize. During the last session 1 had the honour to promise my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) that the next exhibition would show whether we had improved, and I think my memory serves me well when I state that this year, the large Dairy School of St. Hyacinthe took a first prize. We, then, have first-class products, but we cannot ask the Department of Agriculture who is looking after production and tries to keep up quality, to find new markets for the surplus of those products. In fact, if we look up the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture, we find that there is nothing to warrant an expenditure by that Department towards finding an outlet abroad for our surplus of products, whether in the United States, France or Great Britain.
But, is it not rather strange, and I think the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce should be the first to acknowledge it, that countries situated at the Antipodes got ahead of us on the English market, that the products of Argentina, New Zealand and Australia arrive there in larger quantities and that a better price obtains for them than for our Canadian products. I think it is within the purview of the right hon. minister to ascertain why countries so unfavourably situated should have this advantage, while our country, so near to England, and with such an extensive merchant marine, should have such small shipments to Great Britain. He should find out why we are unable to find in England a market for those commodities which are there in great demand and of which we have a considerable surplus. This is even more striking when considered in the light of the
1472.

situation of the dairy industry in Ireland. We are aware that since unrest has broken out in this most unhappy part of the empire more than thirty large dairies, creameries and cheese factories have been destroyed by fire. Moreover, the Department of Agriculture does not allow the exportation of butter and cheese from Ireland except at fixed prices. Again we know that the butter which was smuggled from Ireland into England sold at five or six pence above the price fixed on the English market.
Taking all these facts into consideration, I am of the opinion that our Department of Agriculture should take more interest in the exportation of our dairy products. Our dairy, creamery and cheese factory products do occupy a special position in the country.
The hon. member (Mr. McDermand), who a moment ago showed his interest in the production and sale of fruit in this country, was told by the hon. minister that the department did not supervise internal trade. In my opinion, the department should at least show some interest in our foreign trade in a commodity which is not the produce of a province exclusively, but of all the provinces. Every province in the Dominion is interested in seeing to it that its butter, cheese, cream and condensed milk command better prices and sell in larger quantities. The result of such an undertaking is obvious. The owners of those small factories transact their business directly with a large number of farmers and, in helping those small manufacturers-I think they may be called manufacturers just as well as those who have steel, iron, etc., as their raw material-I am sure the department would be carrying on some useful work. The butter or cheese manufacturer gets his raw material from the farmer and pays him in proportion to the returns from the sales. If we create a larger market for our butter and cheese, the effect will be felt at once by the farmer and the country at large. It is not only a section of the country but the whole Dominion that would benefit by it. What is the use of voting for the Department of Agriculture amounts aggregating about a million dollars, and even more, to promote the better breeding and better care of our herds of cattle, if after all this the Department of Trade and Commerce does not exert itself in order to find a market for our products. From the special statement made to-night by the hon. minister, one would think that the Department of Trade and Commerce is nothing but a film machine, a photographic screen. If the Government of this country

is going to do business with moving pictures as a specialty, there is but one thing to do: turn this House into a public hall and give us moving pictures concerning the intentions of the Government. We would have them before our eyes and the Government would not be committed in any way, as they would not have to say either yes or no. Moving pictures might help in making Canada better known to foreign countries; by their means, immigrants might be attracted here; but I do not believe that they would prove satisfactory to foreign dealers and induce them to purchase our products, though they might bring these dealers to invest money in our country, and perhaps come to see which industries could be developed here; yet, I fail to see how our trade could gain any advantage in this. All the reports of the weekly bulletin which is distributed to us-reports which unfortunately are published in one language only -prove that it is important that the Canadian dealer make some arrangement with the English dealer in regard to his sales, delivery and manner of payment, and also the packing of Canadian products. What do we find in pursuance of the advice given in this Bulletin which is published under the direction of my right hon. friend? We find moving pictures. They may. be very nice and most enjoyable to look at but they are of no help, or very little, to trade. The right hon. minister and his colleagues who accompanied him to the conference of the League of Nations, may have found the sight of our movies most enjoyable but, after all, these gentlemen ought to realize that there is something better than movies to be offered to foreign countries. Is the Government of Canada a moving picture firm? I think this is of a nature to have us turned into ridicule, and if all may spend a pleasant afternoon or. evening at a movie show, there is not much advantage there for our dealers.
We have companies and co-operative organizations in thq province of Quebec. We have the large co-operative society of cheese-factories of Quebec which comprise 8,000 members, and which carries on a trade of several million dollars in foreign countries; this is indeed the only large trade organization which is seeking a foreign market for our farm products, and particularly for butter and cheese manufactured in our province. I cannot say what is being done in other provinces, but I know that there -are large warehouses in these provinces, that there are dealers who are busy marketing a few million pounds

of Canadian butter in Great Britain. I think that the Argentine Republic shipped to England, last year, over 300,000 cwt. of butter, whilst Canada only shipped 32,000 cwt. at the most. Why this discrepancy? I cannot say, and would be glad if the hon. minister himself could suggest an explanation, though I doubt very much he will do so. Neither could it be explained by the movies. It would be most important, especially under present circumstances, that the minister should have under his orders, smart, active, pushing young men 'who understand business, and who could represent us and make our products known in England and the United States.	>
Nearly every day, on the floor of this House, we hear hon. members saing: "You must, we must do our best to trade with our Mother Country, with Great Britain." We would be delighted to sell our products to Great Britain. Only, we realize that our Department of Commerce is not adequately represented in England, that it is not represented in such a way as to help us. I believe that, under these conditions, a fifty million dollar trade should prove of greater attraction to the minister and induce him to take all necessary means so that this product-a product which is greatly needed by the British people, especially cheese which is as bread and wine to the British labourer, cheese which is his principal food -be delivered to him in as large quantities as possible by our country and not by the Argentine Republic or New Zealand or Australia.
I wish to tell the hon. minister that I believe that he, himself, together with the other members of the Government should see to the exportation of products which are manufactured by the farmer or by those who receive the raw product from the farmer. It is very well to attend to large industries; these are generally controlled by large business concerns, men of wealth, who can very well look after their own connections and interests on the European markets.
Until late years, we have had a representative in Europe soliciting orders from the allied countries for our different manufactured articles. This gentleman, though paid by the Dominion, has never very much exerted himself toward establishing commercial relations which might have helped in developing the trade both in the raw material and the manufactured article supplied by the Canadian farmers.
Why this discrimination, which is constantly recurring? Why trouble about the
large manufacturers and never about the agricultural class?
The fiscal year of 1919-20 shows us that about fifty per cent of the total exports of this country consists of products foreign to our large industries. For fifty per cent consisted of farm products, either in their raw state, or as manufactured goods; this being the case, why does not the Department of Trade and Commerce think it proper and expedient to bring on closer commercial relations with England which is our best market? Why do they not see that we export even more to the United States, which seems to be, at the present hour, the largest market in the world.
I hope that the hon. minister himself will deem it expedient to explain some of these flaws which exist in his department, and why he has erred, and if having erred, he wishes to find grace by creating at an early date, for the Canadian farmer, the manufacturer of butter, cheese, condensed milk or cream, a market worthy of our country. What benefit is derived, by the Minister of Agriculture, from stimulating agriculture and asking the farmers of this country to produce more and of a higher standard, if having done so and more than the population of this country can consume, his colleagues, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, cannot find the'necessary outlet for the sale of the surplus of these products.
I think the right hon. Minister of Commerce should stir up his head officers if necessary, and put them to work, so that we, the small as well as the large producers, may profit from the work of his department.


Mr. MOWAT:: I would like to intervene at this stage in order to call attention to a subject which was discussed very briefly this afternoon and which discussion seemed to end in rather an indeterminate manner-that is the importance of considering how much we can do for Canadian trade by establishing commercial agents in the United States. As it is now, those in the adjoining Republic who want to buy Canadian goods have no way of determining the extent of a particular trade or the rates in vogue, and we are accordingly at the greatest disadvantage in that respect as compared with the United States. The latter country has seventy or eighty commercial agents in Canada, most of whom are consuls, and these officers are furnished with admirable trade statistics of the manufactures of their country, and are

able at any time to supply those who are in want of goods from the United States with details in regard to railway rates and other data. We have no service of the kind in the United States, and the consequence is that Canadian manufacturers and producers are at a very great disadvantage in obtaining or filling orders from there. We now know that we are buying from the United States double the amount we export to that country, and this handicap could be largely overcome-so I am told by those who know, and it seems to me quite obvious-by having a better system of advertising our goods in the United States and indicating where reliable information could be obtained as to Canadian industries or products. The expense of such a proceeding would not be great for this reason: I am told, upon reliable authority, that the commercial agents of the United States in Canada-who, as I said before, are consuls and have consular offices in all our large centres-are paid fees by Canadians on the commercial paper involved in sending goods to the United States, and that these fees in the aggregate are sufficient to pay the entire salary or remuneration enjoyed by these commercial agents. We have therefore the extraordinary state of affairs that Canadians are paying the salaries or remuneration received by American officials, but Canada is getting no advantage from the value of the goods exported. I was told of a case by a gentleman in New York who received an enquiry from a manufacturer in New Orleans desirous of obtaining maple sugar and syrup from Canada. Unfortunately he did not know where to go. There was no Canadian agent to whom he could apply, and New Orleans is hundreds of miles away from this country. In some way or other he finally got information, through some agent in Montreal, as to where he could obtain these commodities and the result was that an order came from New Orleans for maple sugar and syrup to the extent of two carloads valued at several thousand dollars. If such a profitable transaction resulted in this' one case, how many more instances are there where Canada loses orders for trade simply because of the fact that the people living over there, at such a distance from this country, have no information as to where to place their orders. If it is a fact that the salaries or remuneration which the American trade agents, or consuls, in this country receive, come from fees paid by Canadians, it seems to me that the same 
result would follow if Canadian trade agents were established in the United States. It would appear that if we could collect fees for Canadian trade agents appointed in the large American centres those fees would equal, and perhaps exceed, the remuneration that should be granted these officers, so there would be no extra expense to our country in putting such a system into effect. At present the work over there, as regards Canada, is done by the British consuls established in the large cities. While no fault can be found with the attention they give to Canadian affairs, they are not particularly anxious to see that Canadian orders are placed. They are British consuls, they are looking after the trade of Great Britain and Ireland, and while they are willing to do what is requisite there is no special effort made by them to help in the placing of Canadian orders. But if we had our own agents over there, and if a certain amount were placed at their disposal for the purpose of advertising in the papers where they were to be found, and what information they could give, I venture to say that a very large amount of the present disparity in the trade between the two countries would soon disappear, and we would find our Canadian business men deriving very great benefit by the appointment of these trade agents.


Frank S. Cahill: I would like to ask the minister, in connection with the item to cover the expense of negotiating treaties, whether the Government has in mind, or has attempted to negotiate, a treaty with England permitting live Canadian cattle to be imported into that country. We give a preference to British goods entering Canada, and I should think that if this Government displayed sufficient activity it could, in exchange for that preference, get permission to have our live cattle landed in Britain. The cattle industry of Canada is going to be very badly crippled if our livestock is excluded from the American market by a high tariff, and shut out entirely from the British market. I would not suggest that the minister should retaliate by increasing the duty on British goods, but I would recommend to him that if Britain is not agreeable to admitting our live cattle, we should reduce the customs duties on goods coming from other countries and make them equal to those prevailing on goods coming from Britain. Has the Government contemplated any such plan as the one I have suggested?


George Eulas Foster: No, we have not thought of anything along that line, in order to achieve the object referred to, but my hon. friend knows very well the position which has been assumed by the Dominion for a great many years past with reference to this question. I think probably the matter will be in a better position by the Government continuing along the lines which have been followed in the past, and which are still being followed, rather than to interject into the issue a tariff question by way of reprisal. I do not think that would be the best way to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
With regard to the point raised by my hon. friend from Parkdale I may say, as I have already stated to-day, that my department is giving very special attention to the subject, and I repeat what I said this afternoon that probably before the end of the session I may have something further to say in a more definite way. The arguments which the hon. member has placed before the committee are believed in by a great many people; but there are others who think that trade between ourselves and the United States might very well be left to take care of itself for the reasons which I have already given. The two countries are in close proximity to one another; they have an intimate knowledge of each others resources, and in a variety of ways they are largely informed as to the extent of the business which each country may do with the other. Then the cost must be taken into account. For us to adopt the consular system which the United States employs and apply it to the United States would necessitate a rather heavy expenditure. The United States' consuls in this country number not more than thirty, and they are supplemented by a certain number of agents. It is true that for every package which is invoiced a fee of $2.50 is charged, and those fees in the gross more than cover the salaries and emoluments of these consular officers and their agents. If we adopt that system we must be prepared, as I said, to apply it to all foreign trade; otherwise it would be considered discriminatory against the United States. Of course, it would not be necessary to apply the system to Empire trade. As I said before, the matter is being considered.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would like the privilege of going back, as did the hon. member
for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) to the item preceding, which varies very much from the present item. I am inclined to say a few words in advocacy of the same principle suggested by him. From what the minister-said the other night, apparently he is thoroughly satisfied with his trade commissioners whom he has at work in various foreign countries, but I do not think he has yet given to the House the names and locations of those gentlemen. I should like to see this information put on record as a matter of publicity so that we may know who those gentlemen are and in what countries they are operating. After all, the best customer we have for our products is the United States, but, roughly speaking, they sell us two dollars' worth of goods for every dollar's worth that we sell them. Now, we enjoy our great volume of trade there without much solicitation on our part, and it seems strange to me that we do not adopt an aggressive trade policy in that great market right at our door instead of sending trade commissioners to remote foreign countries. The appointment of trade agents in unstinted numbers to make a drive for business in the United States would -her most opportune at this particular time, for it is acknowledged by all economists that the only way to put ourselves as nearly as possible on a par of exchange with that great country is by increasing the volume of our exports there. The history of the United States after the Civil War shows most conclusively that they tackled their biggest problems in the building of canals and railroads on top of the greatest debt that the country had ever shouldered. Their slogan was: Full steam ahead! It seems to me that that would be a splendid motto for us to adopt now in developing our present trade channels and opening up new ones. I cannot conceive why in the trade bulletin which goes to all members all sorts of statistics are to be found about the opportunities for trade in Asia, Europe and Africa, illustrated with beautiful pictures of temples situated on the banks of the sacred rivers of the East, and of gondolas on the Venetian canals, while the possibilities of trade with over one hundred millions of people right at our door are apparently ignored. My hon. friend says that the United States has eighty-four consular agents and subsidiary officers here- although I think he would be nearer the mark if he stated the number at fifty-two- all active, energetic men pushing the sale of United States goods in Canada, while we are left to the tender mercies of the British

consular agents in the United States. What do the latter care for the trade of Canada? They are in the United States for the purpose of increasing the trade of England, Ireland and Scotland. Undoubtedly the English people are the greatest traders in the world. They are alive to the necessity of keeping their mercantile marine busy, and they do it through the medium of foreign trade.- Here we are, close to that. vast market with only an imaginary boundary line between us, and it is scarcely credible that the Administration will send its trade agents to foreign climes, thousands of miles away, and neglect the American market right at our door. The minister says that his trade agents abroad are very satisfactory, but I have a recollection of being in the office of one of those gentlemen -I will give his name to the minister privately, as it is something I do not like to speak of publicly. This was some years ago before the present minister was in charge of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I saw the sign, and I went in and interviewed the commissioner, purely out of my desire as a Canadian to know what was going on in relation to Canadian trade. He was a kindly gentleman and a pleasant conversationalist, but before leaving he asked me if I could get for him at Ottawa a map of Canada to put upon his office wall. I said, "Surely you have a map?" He replied, "No, and I need one very much." He also wished me to send him a little atlas which the Canadian Government published and which would be more convenient to him than a map when giving information to callers about Canada and her resources. On my return home I sent him the map and atlas. I am sure that had that been brought to the attention of the right hon. minister who is now head of the department it in itself would have caused a shaking up of the dry bones of the trade commissioners who represent Canada, and would have led to the fitting out of their offices in such a manner as would enable them to talk intelligently about the country they represent and to give to prospective traders all the information likely to promote Canadian trade.
not only information about goods but where the people are and who can supply them- how far it is from Montreal, how far from Toronto and so on. The minister may suggest that surely the trade agent knew that. Well, he had not a map by which to explain it to anybody, and he needed it. It does seem to me that the department should take for its motto: "Full steam ahead." These 
trade commissioners should be properly equipped and informed as to what is necessary in the best interests of our country. Moreover, there should be established at points such as -those referred to by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) independent Canadian trade agents for the express purpose of working in Canada's interests. I have heard no objections to the adoption of that course. The remarks of the hon. member for Parkdale with regard to the expense are much to the point. The fees received by the United States consular agents are, I gather from his remarks, sufficient to pay all the expenses of the American offices here. Surely it would be advisable to try it out, establishing only a few offices at first at the most advantageous points on the other side. The fact that we are doing $500,000,000 worth of trade or thereabouts each year with the United States is in itself an assurance that the cost of establishing and maintaining the offices would be made up by fees, as is the case with the United States offices in Canada. In other words, the offices of these Canadian trade agents would be practically self-sustaining. I leave that suggestion with the minister-full steam ahead on the specific line of the development of Canadian trade, making the Canadian seller of goods, the Canadian wholesaler, the Canadian manufacturer, feel that he has the loyal and active co-operation and assistance of the Government. Even if he is slow himself, he would give the Government credit for having pointed the way to the development and expansion of trade. Moreover, the adoption of this course and the resulting increase of trade would soon have the effect of adjusting the balance of trade as between Canada and the United States.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Chairman, "full steam ahead " is an excellent motto if you accompany it with another: " Be sure you are right, then go ahead." I need hardly say I sympathize most heartily with every effort to improve our trade relations with the United States; therefore the object that the member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) has in view is one with which I am in accord. But I am inclined to think that the argument in favour of trade agents in the United States is not as strong as some people think it is. There is very much force in the view advanced by the minister that one of the reasons why we do not need trade agents in the United States is because we are so near to that country. My hon. friend from Perth (Mr. Morphy) thinks that the fact that we are so near to them is a rea-

son why we should have trade agents there. But you need trade agents in distant ports because distant ports have no convenient means of communicating with us.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Not only does the
United States have consular agents in Canada, but our country is overrun with their commercial travellers.


William Stevens Fielding: Is there any reason why we should not have commercial travellers in the United States? Do our merchants and manufacturers need Government assistance in the matter of sending their travellers to the United States? I do think, however, that the argument in favour of the maintaining of trade agents in distant countries which are not conveniently in communication with Canada is a strong one.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The reason why the
commercial travellers come here from the United States is because the trade agents of the United States tell them what they can sell here-encourage them and bring them here.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh no, it is because they learn from the morning newspaper all about Canada. Of course, in exceptional cases trade agents might advantageously be maintained in certain parts of the United States. The member for Parkdale suggested New Orleans, which is rather distant from Canada. There might be exceptional circumstances under which our having a trade agent at a particular point would be useful, and so far from discouraging it I would cordially support the minister in adopting any suggestion of that kind. But the idea that we should have these trade agents all over the United States is open to the gravest objection. A man who wants to do business between New York and Montreal does not need any trade agents; he can get nearly all the information he wants for a postage stamp, or he can leave by the evening train and arrive in Montreal on the morning of the next day, and vice versa. I am persuaded that the business relations between Canada and the United States will be almost as good without trade agents as with them, unless under such exceptional conditions as I have mentioned. It is my recollection that years ago we had a trade agent in Chicago. We found that he was not needed; that he was not accomplishing anything of a practical nature, and I believe that he was sent to some other part of the country. If you appoint seventy or eighty agents of Canada in the United States and
they collect fees on American goods coming in, as is suggested, that will be an additional tax upon the Canadian people who bring the goods in. Whether we want them to bring those goods in is another question. It is their liberty to do so; the tariff permits it. But if you have a large army of Canadian agents in the United States and bring about the imposition of that additional tax, it may suit some interests in the country but it will not suit the consumer. It may be said that the object of maintaining these trade agents is to check the exports and adjust the balance of trade. Well, I do not think that is the best way to do it. We do not want to impose unnecessary taxation upon any part of our people. I repeat that in special cases, such as at New Orleans or other distant ports-even, perhaps, at New York or Boston-we might well have trade agents, but the idea of having a large army of them in the United States ought not to be too readily accepted. I am rather in sympathy with the view expressed by the minister that our proximity to the United States is one of the reasons why we do not need an army of agents in that country.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. gentleman is most delightful in exaggerating to suit his own purpose. I have not yet heard any one speak about a "large army" of trade agents. I purposely suggested the advisability of starting with a few agents with a view to determining the advantages of the plan. I admit that the hon. gentleman has had vast experience and it is with diffidence that I dispute his suggestion in regard to this matter. But I have come across Americans who do not know this country as we know the United States- people who believe that this is a country of ice and snow, a country of Indians and bears. I am not sure that it would not be a good thing for Canada to send a moving picture show to the United States with a view to depicting the activities in our large cities, the beauty and extent of our lakes and rivers, the value of our steamship services, and so on-in short, to educate those people down there who are apparently backward so far as a knowledge of Canada is concerned.


John Allister Currie: Our railways.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Our railways would also be an object lesson. Why, some people who plan to visit Canada in the summer think that they are coming to the frigid zone and that they should bring their winter

clothes; the fact is that they do not know us. These trade agents would make them know us, wo.uld make them know our trade capacity, would do a great many things. The hon. gentleman speaks about a large army; I want to remind him that this is not war time. That is not language that is justifiable in answer to what I have stated as a matter of principle. Nobody is talking about a "large army," an expression that was repeated three or four times-by the hon. gentleman. My idea is to attempt to establish the principle of expansion of trade in that way. I asked the minister definitely and specifically if he did not wish to take a number of men and put them in that position to try to work out that scheme. The United States to-day is filled with the brightest brains of Canada in the services of banking, railways and other activities. Is it to be said that Canada cannot send men to expand our trade, when the United States is draining our country of some of the best brains we have for some of its greatest activities? I am surprised that the hon. gentleman has so little faith in the ability of our young men. I can safely point to the cities of Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, and I can pick out fifty men as bright as any commercial agent that ever lived, who could go out and do equally good work for Canada as these United States agents are doing here. It is not right to belittle the idea that we have potentialities in our manufactures in Canada.


John Allister Currie: Would it not be better for us to establish trade commissioners at home ' to take that billion dollars worth of trade the Americans get here at the expense of our manufacturers? That would be starting the business at home.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That is a general principle with which I think both sides of the House would agree, but they may fail to agree upon the proper method of carrying it out. They have failed to come together on a straight national policy. I am prone to think, and I want to say right now, that one of the weaknesses in our Canadian national life is the fact that while in this chamber there are men, who believe in a certain policy for the welfare, expansion, growth and swelling of the activities of Canada, for those things that will go to bring us above the debt that burdens us, the one thing in the way is partisanship 
on the part of men who will surrender their conviction for the sake of the fetish of a party name. Men on the other side, ardent protectionists, willing to build up the country in that way, will vote for a reduction in the tariff in order to get into office.


William Stevens Fielding: The zeal of my hon.
friend (Mr. Morphy) in favour of better relations with the United States is exceedingly interesting. I will not say it is amusing, because that would not be courteous to my hon. friend. I will not say it is surprising, although I might say that in view of certain events which occurred not very long ago. My hon. friend had something to say about men belittling the young men of the country. I do not know who did so, I certainly have not said anything of the sort. If there are these hundreds and thousands of able young men throughout the country, by all means let them go to the United States as commercial travellers or anything else, if they are wanted. I believe they can go without any Government assistance. The only portion of my hon. friend's remarks with which I can agree is that of advertising Canada by films and so forth. He must have been asleep or absent this afternoon and evening; otherwise he would have known that my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) explained at great length this afternoon that the Government are doing that now. It is a good service, I commend my right hon. friend for doing it. I am willing to accept the assurance of the minister that he is doing it now. My hon. friend seems to assume that the minister is not doing it and that some movement of that kind is necessary.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I was absent this afternoon when that information was given to the committee. I was not aware of it.


William Stevens Fielding: I thought not.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not know that there was any crime in my not being in the House at the moment. As to the gratuitous suggestion of my being asleep in the House, that is a pleasure which, since I have been a member of the House of Commons, I have never once enjoyed.


Mr. BUTTS:: You do not know what
you have missed.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I hope hon. gentlemen
opposite have as clean a sheet upon that subject as I. The point that I make is merely fringed by what the hon. gentleman

said a little time ago about commercial travellers. I would organize them or have the State take it upon itself to organize them as commercial agents and send them out. That is the difference between the hon. gentleman and myself. He is willing to admit the value of the trade and ardently desires the trade. I ardently desire to get it. The only difference is that he does not agree with the principle of the Government assisting to develop Canadian trade. What is the Department of Trade and Commerce for, unless it is for that very thing, 

the development of the trade of Canada for the benefit of the people of Canada? If that be so, we have at our doors a market of 100,000,000 people who are crowding upon us and selling and dumping their goods upon us, through the activities of their trade agents and consular officers, but we are pusillanimous enough to say:
. "We will not do the same thing; we will go to them."


William Stevens Fielding: I am sorry to dissent from my hon. friend. He intimates that I am complaining of the Government. He is complaining of the Government; I am commending the Minister of Trade and Commerce for what he is doing. The hon. gentleman is doing his best to make it appear that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is neglecting his work. I am standing by the Government in this matter; my hon. friend is attacking them.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am attacking the Government in this way: I believe it is the duty of every member of this House who has opinions, to express them freely.


Frank S. Cahill: Except when there is a vote on.	.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not know that that is an exception that it is' not wise to follow when you have on one side of the House-


Rodolphe Lemieux: The patriots.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. gentleman
may have a right to talk about patriotism. He himself has it, but it is coming pretty close to some hon. members opposite who dare not say very much about it.


Frank S. Cahill: As much as the other side.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: As to the vote, I have shown independence in this House in voting occasionally against the Government. I would like to know if the hon. gentleman ever did so in his life. Nobody ever heard of his doing so. He has been a party slave.


Frank S. Cahill: I have always voted
against the Government.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That is pretty cheap and very well put in. I meant against the hon. gentleman's leader and party and policy. He knew very well what I meant. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I am not attacking the Government because the Government has not inaugurated this policy. There is no attack about the matter; I want them to carry out this policy; that is all.


Mr. NESBITT:: There has been more or less discussion about charges made by consular agents of the United States. Wrhat are their charges for? When I have gone to export goods to the United States, I have never heard of being charged by them.


George Eulas Foster: Before I answer that question, I want to address a word to my hon. friend (Mr. Morphy), who has spoken so eloquently to-night. I am afraid he has been asleep a bit. I am inclined to agree with my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Fielding) that he does occasionally take a nap.	[DOT]


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No.


George Eulas Foster: If not in the House, certainly somewhere else.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Not while the House is in session.


George Eulas Foster: My hon.'friend charged me and the Government because we were so dilatory that we did not give the names of our trade commissioners, and he thought I might at least get up and read them. Then, afterwards, he showed an intimate acquaintance with the bulletins. He had looked at the Ganges as it was portrayed in the bulletin, had seen a sacred temple here and Bangkok there, but he never knew, and does not know now, who our trade commissioners are, though every edition of the bulletin has the names of every one of our trade commissioners, and where they are stationed. If my hon. friend would just read that page of the bulletin he would have that information.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have seen the names, but I want them put on record so that the country will know them.


George Eulas Foster: The country sees them as well as my hon. friend. They are everywhere throughout the country.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Oh, no, they are not.


George Eulas Foster: There is not a business house in this country that has not the bulletin on its table, and that does

not know where every one of our trade agents is stationed.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is right.


George Eulas Foster: There is not a trade commissioner in the service now who does not visit Canada once in every two years and make a tour of the whole Dominion from one end to the other; he talks with the merchants and manufacturers, interchanges information, gets the information that he needs, and goes back again to his field with the best possible equipment that can be given to him. My hon. friend was unfair to the service in resuscitating ancient history to the extent of giving a description of a trade commissioner of this Government who had not a map of Canada in his office and had to ask my hon. friend for a copy. That must have been in the dim and dusty ages of long ago. I do not think my hon. friend could find such a trade commissioner now. It rather grates on the commissioners, who are putting their best efforts into their work of securing trade for Canada along the most instructed and best possible lines, to be held up in the House of Commons as of the same type as that antediluvian of whom my hon. friend spoke, and who had to ask him for a map and a book that he wanted. All our agents are thoroughly furnished, all who are in the field now are intelligent men, and I believe that the exceptions are very few where these men are not absolutely devoted to their work and doing it with a spirit and elan which is entirely satisfactory. I have more to do with them than has my hon. friend, and when he gets a little leisure and goes out into foreign countries, I want him to go into the offices of our trade commissioners and talk with the men who are performing this service, and I know when he comes back he will have a higher opinion of them.
Now, let us come back for a moment to the stationing of the men in the United States. We have to do it on a wholesale plan if it is to be made self-supporting. You cannot place an agent in New York, or New Orleans, pay him by charges which he is authorized to make upon invoice of goods shipped from his locality, and not treat other parts of the United States where we trade in the very same way. It would not be fair to our own merchants; it would not be fair in any sense. We would in that case have to foot the whole

expense, and not	charge it upon
the United States.	I do not think
there is any getting away from that, and that is one thing I want hon. members to think over as one of the difficulties in the way. It must be a wholesale business or none. We have to put at least one or two hundred men in the United States to cover the vast area where our people do business. The business is so widely distributed that you cannot mark off a little zone in one part of the United States, say to every man who trade from Canada in that zone that he must pay $2.50 on every invoice, or three per cent on the value of the goods, or whatever it is, and not subject his competitor who buys from other parts of the United States to the very same charge, because it is said in the United States, and it will be said with us, that it is really the purchaser in the United States who has to pay this invoice charge. But the matter does not go only that far. We must also take foreign countries into account. Some foreign countries do the same as the United States. They charge upon the invoice, either a percentage of its value, or a certificate of charge. A number of countries do that. These are some of the things we have to take into account.
In reply to the question of my hon, friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), the United States consuls certificate the invoice and charge $2.50, whether the invoice is for $200 or $20,000. Other countries, the South American States particularly, follow a different plan. There are two or three of them that make a flat charge, but the others make a percentage charge of from 1 to 3 per cent upon the value of the goods. France has a flat charge, I think, and some other countries a percentage charge. It is a large subject, and I have mentioned a few of the things that we must consider before we jump into it. That is what I and the Government are trying to do before making up our minds as to the policy to be adopted. I am quite in accord with my hon. friend as to the necessity of being alive and active.
My hon. friend also alluded to publicity by means of films, evidently without the knowledge that we had been engaged in that work for a couple of years, and were pushing it. As I said this afternoon, there are probably three or four millions of people who in the United States see these films depicting our sources, our productive processes, the beauties of our scenery, and everything in connection therewith. They

are learning of Canada through the eye, and what is learnt in this way impresses itself on the mind. Every picture has a title which fixes on the mind one important fact with reference to what is being shown. It is a fine way of cultivating the interest and of expanding the knowledge of people.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was very much interested in the remarks made by my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy). As I listened, approving to a certain extent the remarks which he delivered this evening, I thought of ten years ago and asked myself, how it is that the hon. gentleman has reversed so completely his policy? I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that if in the year 1911 you and I, belonging to the same party and to the same league, had been suddenly transported to the beautiful county of Perth we would probably have heard very different sentiments from those the hon. gentleman has expressed here to-night. My hon. friend is most anxious now to develop trade with the United States. We should have, he says, young Canadian emissaries in every centre of American activity from east to west and north to south, and our motto should be the old Yankee motto after the Civil War, "Full steam ahead." We should attract American capital , to Canada, and boost Canada in the U. S. What a change of heart, Mr. Chairman! Why, I am sure that the hon. members opposite in 1911, with the right hon. gentleman leading the chorus-


George Eulas Foster: I do not sing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Probably not the swan
song; but the right hon. minister had a ebautiful clarion voice in 1911, and he sang the well known refrain: "No truck nor trade with the Yankees" and "Under which flag?" Canada first, Canada last, and Canada for ever!" By the way, I would suggest to my hon. friend from Perth that the real motto of our trade agents in the U.S. should be, not "full speed ahead,'" but the old Macdonald motto, the old Blake motto:	"Canada
first." That would be my motto in the United States of America. Mr. Chairman, trade will find its level just as water will, and it is not through a high tariff wall that you will attract trade to your country. There was, in 1911, a splendid and unique opportunity for Canada to develop a sound, healthy and prosperous trade with the United States. We had sought for that opportunity since the abrogation of the
first reciprocity treaty in 1866. Sir John A. Macdonald in 1872, Mr. George Brown in 1874, Sir John Macdonald again in 1879, Sir Charles Tupper, and my right hon. friend, in 1891, indeed, all the leaders of public opinion on both sides of politics, for practically half a century, clamoured and clamoured in vain for the return of the golden era between 1854 and 1866. And in 1898, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the last of our great statesmen who have disappeared from public life, after vain efforts to renew that reciprocity treaty, said at last: We shall make no more pilgrimages to Washington.
In the year 1910 the hon. gentleman sitting beside me (Mr. Fielding), who presided over the Treasury Department, having made a great name for himself as Minister of Finance, was invited for the first time in the history of our relations with the United States, to go, not to Washington, but to meet half way, at Albany, I believe, the representatives of the American Government with a view to securing to the United States the benefit of a reciprocity pact with Canada. He came back with the very same offer-there were perhaps a few items, more or less, changed, but it was practically the same-which had been on our statute book since 1879, because the National Policy, of which the right hon. gentleman is so proud, was based on a permanent standing offer of reciprocity in natural products with the United States. If my hon. friend will refer to the statute of 1879, he will see, in black and white, that the National Policy was launched with a view to obtaining a reciprocity pact with the United States. In that statute there is a permanent standing offer of reciprocity with them in natural products. My hon. friend, I say, went to the United States, where he met the chief of the executive and succeeded in obtaining from their Government a pact which no one can deny was the best commercial agreement ever reached by us with the United States. When it was presented to Parliament it was received with applause on both sides of the House. It made for better relations with the Republic to the south of us, not only in trade matters, but socially as well. We cannot forget that they are our neighbours and it is well for us to have cordial relations with them.
But the right hon. gentleman and my hon. friend from Perth (Mr. Morphy) were among the chief offenders in '1911. From	one end	of the country
to the other they abused the United



States and the American people, and, not satisfied with that, they accused the great statesman who had negotiated the agreement, as well as his fellow-workers in the Canadian Government of being traitors. We know what the result was, because you and I, Mr. Chairman, were of the minority elected on that policy in 1911. Now, I repeat, if you wish to develop trade with the United States, the larger part of that business being agricultural,- because Canada is a great farming country [DOT]-what is most essential is a market for our farm products. The manufacturers can take care of themselves. We have a great many manufacturing establishments in the province of Ontario and in Quebec, and I know that to a certain extent, from statistics available, they can compete in many lines even with the Americans. The trade which we must promote the most is that of our agricultural products with the United States. I am afraid that it must be said of my right hon. friend, as it was said of the statesmen of Europe in the last century who were responsible for the criminal partition of Poland, that since 1911 he has been in a state of mortal sin, because he helped by word of mouth, aye by incendiary speeches, to defeat the reciprocity pact that would have provided so much business for Canada.
If that agreement were in effect to-day, we should not have the adverse balance of trade which has been deplored in a way that ill became a Canadian minister who spoke in New York the other day. By the way, I do not think it is the proper way of improving our relations with the Americans, either commercially, politically, or socially, for any of our ministers to bewail at meetings there the fact that we are buying too much from the United States. I did not like the attitude of the right hon. gentleman at that New York banquet a few weeks ago; he is usually better inspired. Nor do I like the speeches of his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), who keeps on repeating to our good people not to buy from the Americans. That is not a position of which a Canadian minister can be proud. No:	The blunder was made in
1911, when a campaign of prejudice was preached in the back concessions to defeat the commercial agreement between Canada and our great neighbour to the south. A flag-flapping campaign was organized and vigorously executed to defeat that arrangement. I can remember that some farmers from the province of Ontario,

when they heard that a reciprocity pact had been negotiated, sent telegram after telegram of congratulations to my hon. friend, some of them affirming that the value of their farms would be doubled and trebled by the effect of that agreement. Sir, do you not see to-day that the wave of discontent and unrest which exists in the great farming communities of Canada, in Ontario and in the West, is due largely to the treacherous policy in 1911, of the party that faces me to-night? Why did you prevent the Canadian farmer from selling his products? The pact did not affect the manufacturers. You have created grievances which to-day have come back with a vengeance. This is plain talk, but the right hon. gentleman knows that I am speaking the unvarnished truth.
Now, as to the campaign against the United States. If you wish to promote trade with the United States, if you are so anxious to get an export market for Canadian products in that counti'y, why do not hon. gentlemen opposite stop the campaign of vilification against the Americans-carried on here in the city of Ottawa, there in the city of Toronto? I have here a review which is published under the auspices of the Government party nailed The Onlooker. What do I read in that review? My hon. friend from Perth wishes to send Canadian trade agents into the United States. I wonder if the following from The Onlooker of March, 1921, is conducive to better trade relations with the Americans:
At the back of the brain of the average American there lies the conviction that sooner or later but one flag will fly over the whole surface of the North American continent from the North Pole to the Isthmus of Panama. He calls it, and has called it for years, "Inevitable Destiny". We do not blame him. The genuine native-born American has many lovable qualities. . . . The danger may not be immediate, but in dim outline it already looms vast on the national horizon and fills some of us with apprehension.
Reference is made to the designs, "the sinister designs" of the average American against Canada. Further on the article says:
It is not the cultivated American, half of whose heart, and almost the whole of whose culture, is in Britain, we dread. It is not spiritual and intellectual America we fear. It is commercial America we doubt. For commerce is impersonal, without sentiment, and takes no cognizance of those higher things that illuminate and enrich the national life. So far, indeed, as the soul is concerned, gold is the deadliest of narcotics.	* *
The true danger lies in scarcely recognized impersonal tendencies with which kindly ex-

pressions of goodwill have little or nothing to do.
My hon. friend can see to what danger he is exposing himself and his good people when he wants to get American gold. It is the "deadliest of narcotics" says this Tory publication. Mr. Chairman, let us be frank about this matter. The Americans, when the test came were at one with the British Empire, were at one with the Allies in upholding the cause of civilization and liberty. They have with us practically a common history, common laws, a common language and common ideals. I am speaking of the majority in both countries. What is the object of that pinpricking policy which is aided and subsidized by the funds of a certain party? Do you think you will promote Canadian trade with the Americans by publishing such vicious appeals as these? As to the merits of trade representation in the United States I am inclined to believe that it would not be a bad thing if there were some trade agents in the principal centres of the United States. I do not say that we should have trade agents in every city or town; but there are large centres like Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York and Boston where there should be Canadian trade agents. We were told by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) not long ago, that Canada was a nation, and that so soon as it pleased this country she might appoint consular agents, and even an ambassador at Washington. Why do we not appoint consular agents if we have that potential power? If there is a country in the world where we are interested in having consular agents it is the United States of America. I do not know how it is with my friends of English parentage, but I know as regards those of my nationality, there are in the United States not as many French Canadians as there are in the province of Quebec, but there are certainly over a million and a half of them in that country. The largest French centres, outside of Montreal and Quebec, are in the New England cities- cities like Lowell, Manchester, Boston, Bay City and others. All these cities are large French Canadian centres. There is a coming and going of French Canadians all the time between these cities and our province, and it is strange to think that the invoices and the passports necessitated by that ebb and flow of people have to go before the British consul when we could have a consular agent of our own to look 941
after these matters. As a matter of fact I know, because I have often accepted invitations from Canadian clubs in the United States, that Philadelphia, for instance, is simply an outpost for Toronto, Hamilton and London, as Boston is an outpost for Halifax and St. John. In New York, in Boston, there are at least twenty-five to thirty thousand Canadians. So we are closely connected with the Republic, and it is ngt by such writings as the one I have just read to the committee that we will improve our relations, commercial and otherwise, with the Americans. Remember, Mr. Chairman, that the first trade treaty of 1854 with the United States was negotiated at a time when it meant the salvation of Canada from a national point of view. Remember that the first reciprocity treaty was negotiated with the United States when there was in this country a strongly expressed sentiment in favour of annexation on account of the removal of the British preference following on the establishment [DOT] of free trade in England. The annexation manifesto was not signed by rebels like myself or like my friends from Gloucester, Vaudreuil and Joliette, it was signed by Sir John Abbott. Sir John Rose, Sir A. T. Galt, Judge Johnson of Montreal-indeed by the best English stock in Canada, by our great merchants and captains of industry. That manifesto was remarkably well drafted. It was transmitted by Lord Elgin to the British authorities, and he warned them that if immediate action was not taken there was a grave danger that Canada would pass under the political domination of the United States. He was at once authorized by the British Government to himself go to Washington and negotiate a treaty. He succeeded in his mission, and that treaty lasted until 1866. We know why it was abrogated:	In those days-as to-day unfortunately-there was a class of Canadians always ready to belittle the Americans and to speak of them in uncomplimentary terms. Some of the confederate victories were applauded even in the Canadian Parliament. As a result, when, after the 'civil war, the time came to renew the treaty the _ Americans	refused. Since 1866
men in both our great parties, men occupying the position of my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) and the position of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) have tried in vain to secure the renewal of that treaty. Our statesmen went periodically to Washington with that end in view-Sir John A. MacDonald at the time of the Fisheries Treaty,

the Hon. George Brown, Sir Charles Tupper, my right hon. friend, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Richard Cartwright -because by them all, it was considered that the renewal of that trade agreement would be in the best interests of Canada. Ultimately my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's succeeded-but not at his asking. He was solicited by the Americans themselves, by Mr. Taft and Mr. Knox, to enter into a trade compact in natural products. But, unfortunately for Canada, there was a party in this House and in the country which was more anxious to defeat the Liberal government than to give the farmers the great market which Canda had been seeking for upwards of fifty years. Now my right hon. friend is anxious to secure business from the United States. Let him make a confession, and let him have contrition for the mortal sin he committed in 1911. Then we will give him another lease of office, if need be, in order that he may redeem his soul by improving the trade relations between Canada and the great republic to the south of us. I agree that it is not natural that Canada should have this enormous balance of trade against her; the Americans should buy much more than they do from their best customer. The best means towards attaining this worthy object, is to get the American market for our farmers and i know of no better man than the right hon. gentleman to do. the trick, if he will undertake it.


Levi Thomson: Mr. Chairman, we listened this afternoon to attempts to blacken the record of the little angularly opposite group here in connection with the items that came before this committee. We took part in that discussion, and I do not think it is necessary to follow up any further this political cross-firing. The subject with which we are now dealing is worthy of the most careful consideration. I quite agree with my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) that the best way to accomplish what we require here, if I interpret his view correctly, is by some reciprocal arrangement with the United States. I am satisfied that we will never secure proper trade relations except in that way. However, we have to take conditions as we find them, and we must recognize that while the present Government retain power it is hopeless to expect any move in that direction. As we are not in a position to set to work in the best way, we must adopt the second best, and I am still of the opinion that lies in endeavouring to secure a reception for exports to the United States

through trade commissioners. The right hon. gentleman has held up the horrible picture of the necessity of one or two or possibly three hundred trade commissioners to carry out this plan, while the hon. member for Maisonneuve seems to think we might start with a small number. I would be sorry to advance my opinion against gentlemen of such great experience, but as they hold entirely different views I may venture to express the opinion that there is no reason why we cannot start work with a small number of trade commissioners. The hon. member for Maisonneuve has spoken of the necessity of cultivating a market in the United States for our farm products, and I agree with him that that is the only kind of trade which will help us to get rid of the present adverse balance of trade. It is natural that we should supply farm products to our neighbours to the south, and perhaps it is quite as natural that they should supply us with some other things which they can manufacture more cheaply. To my mind any effort to develop along unnatural lines is not likely to succeed. The best and only way of developing trade is along natural lines, that is, to purchase those things which can be more cheaply manufactured in other countries, and to export to those countries things which we can produce more cheaply. We have shown our ability to produce farm products as well as any country in the world, and better than our neighbours to the south. Our manufacturers tell us that it is utterly impossible for them to manufacture as cheaply as their competitors in the United States. I do not agree with that. Anyway, it is quite plain that in cultivating profitable trade with our American neighbours we must endeavour to sell to them as much as possible of our farm produce. I daresay that the efforts of our trade commissioners have largely been directed towards the procuring of markets for our manufactured articles, and that is because of the mad notion we have that that is the only way in which the country can be developed. I say it is a mad notion, and the sooner we get rid of it the better. The . sooner we come to understand that we should export the things which we can most profitably produce, the better for us and for the world at large.
It is quite plain that we can improve our trade relations with certain countries by means of trade agents, because we are employing them now in different parts of the world. The Americans, who are a

shrewd commercial people, believe that they can improve their trade relations in contiguous countries by the appointment of trade agents. They are not spending this money for the pure love of spending it; they believe that they will get some benefit from the expenditure. Possibly one of the reasons for our adverse balance of trade with the United States is found in the fact that the United States is appointing trade agents to look after its export trade to Canada while Canada is making no effort to increase her exports to the United States. I understood the minister to say before six o'clock that the Government were considering this matter. If so, this is the proper time for us to air our views. I am sure that the right hon. gentleman will not be averse to receiving suggestions even from back benchers in this unfortunate group which has been so much abused this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Howard Sinclair: Before we proceed to another item I want to refer to item 361, which I understand was passed at a late hour last night. I suppose un'der that item would be included the printing of blue books. In one very useful book issued by the Finance Department, the Public Accounts, there had been published from Confederation up to last year tables of expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in the various departments, and by one glance at these pages the growth of our expenditure in all the various departments could be readily ascertained. In the issue of the book for 1920 these tables were eliminated, on the ground, as is stated in the first part of the report, of economy. I understand that my right hon. friend is a member of the committee that controls the printing of blue books, and that is the reason why I mention the matter now. I would like him to consider the restoration of these tables. They have been very useful to me and I know that they have been regarded as valuable by many members of the House as well as by men who are not in the House. Year after year I have been asked to send this book to people who value the information that had been given in these tables. Only a few leaves have been cut out by eliminating them, and I certainly think it is false economy. I trust that the minister will take the trouble to look into it, and if he agrees with, me, to see that when the book comes out next year these tables are restored.


George Eulas Foster: I certainly will look into it.
Weights and Measures, salaries of inspectors, and staff, $192,460; rent, fuel, travelling expenses, postage, stationery, etc., $125,000; International Bureau of Weights and Measures, $400.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the reason for the increase?


George Eulas Foster: It is due
mainly to the reclassification. There is an increase also in contingent expenses for travelling, owing to the fact that we now carry out the inspection of weights and measures throughout the country every year, whereas we formerly did it once in two years. Last year or the year before we increased the fees. When this branch came over to my department I found a surplus of officials, and as some of the older officers are retired they are not being replaced. As a result of these considerations the Weights and Measures Branch for part of the year just passed has for the first time shown a surplus over expenditure. WTe think, therefore, that we are on the way to making this branch pay for itself.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions- Atlantic Ocean-Canada and Newfoundland, steam service or services between, $35,000.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Has the Government commission in charge of the Newfoundland railways, which are really a part of this service, brought about any betterment of the road or any general improvement of the system?


George Eulas Foster: I am afraid I cannot say that matters with reference to the railway are being improved. My hon. friend, perhaps, knows something of the situation as regards that road. Newfoundland has had the hardest winter it has had for many years. The road has been practically out of commission for weeks at a time. The company have not entered into any contract yet for steamship service, although they are performing a service between Port aux Basques and North Sydney. They have been pressing us for a larger subsidy. The service is going on, and some of our own vessels have, I think, been put on for part of the time, but the condition of the railroad makes the service very unsatisfactory. I understand, by report, that a commission has been appointed to take into consideration the rearrangement or betterment of the road, but the situation is not very satisfactory at the present time.


James Hamilton Ross: I notice, in his annual report, in connection with the Canadian Merchant Marine, the minister states:

Since tlie commencement of the overseas Government service up to the 31st March, last, 71 voyages have been performed.
And in that number I notice that seven voyages have been performed between Canada and Newfoundland. How are these subsidies entered into? Are they entered into for a term of years? It seems rather inconsistent for us to be building merchant ships and sending them to Newfoundland and also subsidizing vessels of other lines which are apparently competitors. As the Canadian Merchant Marine increases and grows strong, will these subsidies cease and will we do our own work between Canada and Newfoundland?


George Eulas Foster: I have not the management of the Canadian Merchant Marine, and none of my appropriations go to the merchant marine, as my hon. friend knows. That is carrying on its services, and it has put on certain services between Halifax and St. John's, Newfoundland. It is putting on some services between Quebec and Newfoundland during the summer season, but neither of those touches this route, which is the link between the end of our Canadian National railways and the terminus of the Newfoundland railway at Port aux Basques.


James Hamilton Ross: Why could we not use our own boats to make this connecting link?


George Eulas Foster: We have not used them.


James Hamilton Ross: Why should we not?


George Eulas Foster: I do not know that they would be exactly fitted for that service. Anyway we have reduced the vote by $30,000. *


Rodolphe Lemieux: What became of the old Bruce?


George Eulas Foster: She came to grief some way or another, I do not know where.


James Hamilton Ross: Are these contracts for subsidies made for a term of years or just for one year?


George Eulas Foster: This one is made ' from year to year.


James Hamilton Ross: Would it not be a good thing for the minister to look into the question whether it would not be wise to cut off this subsidy and use our own boats? They would not be all too busy.


George Eulas Foster: I have looked into that, and in some cases we have taken off the subsidy where our boats are doing

the work to-day. You cannot make all these substitutions at once. I am not sure whether our own boats can be used on this route at all. That, however, is a matter to be considered.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am afraid that the cutting down of this subsidy has rather paralyzed this service. For quite a number of years, as the minister knows, the Reid Newfoundland company was getting a subsidy of $70,000, and with that subsidy, the water end of the service was carried on very satisfactorily; they carried many passengers and large quantities of freight between the terminus of the National railways at North Sydney and Newfoundland. But ever since this cut was made, things have been paralyzed. There are no proper boats where there used to be a daily service and two boats on continuously. I think my right hon. friend will find that there is only one boat now, the Kyle, that can really be called a boat that is fitted for the service. The Reid Newfoundland company contend that they cannot enter into a contract to carry the mails, but the mails between Canada and Newfoundland are very large. As far as I know, they go from North Sydney to Port aux Basques, or when they cannot go to Port aux Basques, they go to St. John's. It is rather a serious thing so to cut this subsidy as to strike a blow at an old service like this. This route was established some twenty-five years ago when the first Bruce was built. The first Bruce was lost, and the second Bruce, which was an equally good boat, was commandeered by the British Government and sent to Russia as an icebreaker during the war. She has never come back, and I suppose she became a Russian boat long ago. The company would like to get a satisfactory condition again as they had before the war to carry on the service, and I am afraid that this cutting the subsidy by one-half is not going to enable us to have that service. My home town is the terminus of the road and the starting point for trade with Newfoundland. When I talk about that service, people might think I am talking about my home town, but the service is of very little advantage to us. The boat comes and goes; travellers land at North Sydney and take passage to all parts of the world; large quantities of freight come and are switched down to the wharf and the stuff goes on to the boat and off to Newfoundland. The service means very little to us, but nevertheless it is a magnificent source of trade. Our Canadian trade with Newfoundland is very large, and unless we have

proper means of handling it, we cannot hope to keep it going. If a man in Newfoundland buys a few cars of flour and they stand for six weeks on the wharf at North Sydney and are not taken across to meet the necessities of his trade, he is not very likely to repeat his order in that way. We have keen competition from Americans who have water advantages that we have not. When I bring this matter to the attention of the minister and of the Government, it is not a local matter at all; it is the broad question of Canadian trade with a British country such as Newfoundland is, a country that is willing to trade with us. It came out the other day that we were competing with ourselves. We are competing with ourselves in this trade by putting on boats at Halifax and carrying stuff from that port to Newfoundland instead of letting it all go by the one route. I can readily understand that the Government boats are not fit for the trade between Port aux Basques and North Sydney, so far as passengers are concerned, but they can certainly carry freight. I have been in conversation with the minister several times about the betterment of the terminus at Norh Sydney. This is not a local niatter at all. It is a matter of just as much concern to the man who ships a carload of flour from Manitoba to Newfoundland as it is to the people of North Sydney, that there should be proper facilities at the terminus of the road for handling the business- that goes there. For the last three years, at all events, we have been promised from day to day that the wharves would be extended and that better facilities would be provided at that point. So far I have not heard this year whether that is to be done or not, and I am simply doing my duty in bringing this matter to the notice of the Department of Trade and Commerce, which seems to be particularly the one that functions along this line. If the people of Canada find that their trade with Newfoundland is falling off, they will know that the cause to some extent is that we are not in a proper position to handle expeditiously the traffic that now exists, and that has been growing very satisfactorily during the last 25 years. While the trade was very small at the beginning, it is very substantial now, and I hope that the minister, so far as he can do so, will see that everything is done to hold the trade we now have, and develop it as much as possible.


George Eulas Foster: Repairs and improvements are now being made on our
end of the road, but the trouble is at the Port aux Basques end. The trouble is with the railway accommodation in Newfoundland itself. It has happened again and again that vessels loaded at the Sydney side have gone over to the other side and have had to bring back part of their cargo, in whole or in part, because it could not be accommodated there. The service which was meant to be a daily service when we paid the heavy subsidy is now at best a triweekly service. With poor equipment, a bad road, no accommodation at Port aux Basque's, and only a tri-weekly service, the trade is going in some respects through other channels. Our own vessels of the merchant marine are going from Halifax to St. John's, Newfoundland, which is the objective of most of the traffic. They are also putting on a service which will serve Prince Edward Island and go from there direct to St. John's, Newfoundland. Everything that can possibly be done to keep the connection on this route, I think, we have a right to do, and I am disposed to do it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps on this item I might ask a question of the minister in reference to the new route that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries hinted the other day would be established between Montreal and Newfoundland, via Charlottetown. I take it that the intention is to go to St. John's, Newfoundland. I understand that the Board of Trade of North Sydney has been in communication with the Department of Trade and Commerce or the Department of Marine and Fisheries with a view to getting the boats to call at North Sydney or Sydney. The right hon. gentle- " man knows that in going from Charlottetown to St. John's, Newfoundland, the Isle of Cape Breton is pretty much in the track of the boat. The boats will require bunkering, of course, and instead of bunkering at Montreal or St. John's, where the price of coal is very heavy, I would submit that as a matter of business the boats should bunker at North Sydney, where they can get coal at the pit's mouth, as the saying is. As my good friend from South Cape Breton, who is now sitting beside the minister, knows, that is the spot for the boat to bunker. While there she could also take on passengers and freight for Newfoundland, and on the return voyage carry coal back from North Sydney to Montreal or Quebec. If this service is established,
I think it would be a great mistake to give the go-by to a place like North Sydney or

Sydney, where a trade could be developed, and where the boats could get the coal they need very much cheaper than at Montreal or St. John's. The coal they would get at Montreal would have come from North Sydney in the first place, and would have added to it the expense of hauling. So, as a pure matter of business, I would impress upon the minister the advisability of adopting the suggestion I have made.


George Eulas Foster: That matter has already been represented and is being considered by the Mercantile Marine company, which is anxious to get all possible traffic which will pay, and to bunker at the cheapest places.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada and the West Indies or South America, or both, steam service or services between, $340,666.66.
William Stevens Fielding: Would the minister explain the present condition of tnat contract, who are the contractors, and what are the pprts of call?


George Eulas Foster: The same contractors.


William Stevens Fielding: The Royal Mail Steam Packet company?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, their contract was first for five years. Then the war intervened and we have been keeping it on from year to year. At the present time, as a part of the arrangement we are making with the West India Islands for a larger preference, there is a proposition for an improved service, and if possible, a weekly service. Of course my hon. friend knows that up to the present time everything has been at peak prices. We are simply continuing this for another year in order to give us an opportunity of getting an improved service, a weekly service if possible should the trade warrant it.


William Stevens Fielding: Most of our Government ships, I am aware, are only freight vessels, but I understand that in the case of at least one, if not two, of these vessels going to the West Indies passenger accommodation has been provided. Are these boats now running to the same ports as come under this item or different ports.


George Eulas Foster: It is a service which runs from Halifax and St. John, Halifax mainly, to Jamaica. It touches at the Bahamas, Bermuda and British Honduras, and returns by the same route. We have had no subsidized service on that route, but as a result of the conference we had with

the West Indian delegates two vessels of the mercantile marine were fitted up with certain passenger accommodation, enough for about thirty passengers, and have been put upon that route. They will be regularly kept on that route. Jamaica and Honduras pay a certain amount. If the agreement is carried through, they bind themselves to pay a certain portion of any deficit that may occur as their contribution towards maintaining the service. Two trips have already been made, I think, and both, so far as I have learned, have been successful.


William Stevens Fielding: They are not in any sense competing with this line?


George Eulas Foster: No; they have a different route entirely.


William Stevens Fielding: Do they not call at Bermuda ?


George Eulas Foster: If this line
calls at Bermuda there might be some competition; just with reference to that point, and just now when it is brought to my attention, I am not sure that these steamers do call there.


William Stevens Fielding: They formerly did.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, this line does, but the other line I have spoken of does not.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend himself said that they went to Bermuda. I have no knowledge of the matter but I took it from what he said that the Government steamers are calling there.


George Eulas Foster: I am not so certain about that, but I know that Jamaica is the chief port, and from there they go to British Honduras.


William Stevens Fielding: Do they go to Nassau too?


George Eulas Foster: They touch at the Bahamas.


Frank S. Cahill: What practical advantage is there to Canada from the expenditure of this money?


George Eulas Foster: This is the only regular service we have between Canada and the whole ring of West India islands and Demerara, the whole comprising the Windward and Leeward islands. It is absolutely essential to have this service if we are to promote trade between ourselves and those colonies. Whilst we have so far been carrying on this service entirely at our own expense, the West India islands touched by that route will, under the new

agreement, pay a certain proportion of the subsidy which is necessary to maintain the service.


Frank S. Cahill: What practical results accrue to Canada from this service? Do we get any business that we should not otherwise get? Do we sell goods there which, without the service, we could not sell?


George Eulas Foster: If the hon. member will take the trouble to look over the trade returns he will find that there has been a very large increase in the total trade, both imports and exports, between ourselves and these islands.


Frank S. Cahill: Carried by these boats?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, this is the only regular line that visits them, and it is the best service that we have ever had. The returns show the benefit of it.


John Howard Sinclair: I see
that Demerara is one of the ports which it is intended to serve this year.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, two of the Mercantile Marine boats have been going there.


John Howard Sinclair: Are they under the control of the company that has the contract?


George Eulas Foster: No, they are run by the Mercantile Marine.


John Howard Sinclair: Then the Mercantile Marine is competing with the company?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: That does not seem to be business.


George Eulas Foster: It is business in one way, although in another way it introduces a complication, and it is one of the problems with which we are dealing.


John Howard Sinclair: It ought to be dealt
with in a sound and sensible commercial way. The same thing happened, I understand, in the service between Halifax and Newfoundland, and created considerable confusion and friction. Four companies were competing for the business between St. John's and Halifax, and the business was so small that it afforded no profit to any of the ships running on the route, but they did their best to keep the boats going. In the face of this, the Government suddenly entered the arena, and broke up the little trade there was, making it unprofitable for all concerned. There was not enough traffic to make it worth while for four companies to
operate [DOT] but they endeavoured to keep up the service and divided the work. The Government boats came in but did not reduce the freight by one cent. I am told they adopted the same schedule of freight paid to the commercial boats and simply made the business unprofitable for everyone; no one got any good but of it. Now, if that policy is to be pursued in the West Indies as well as in Newfoundland I think it is time the minister or someone in the Government took this matter into consideration. It seems to me to be very unbusinesslike to subsidize a line serving a place like Demerara and then to step in and make that line unprofitable for those who are struggling to keep it up. Nobody engaged in private business would think of doing such a thing. I hope my hon. friend will give this matter some attention and either keep the Minister of Marine away from these places or else discontinue the subsidy.


George Eulas Foster: There is a
portion of the year in which it is very convenient to have extra vessels on the route. This is during the sugar season, when the amount of sugar to be moved is greater than the regular service can handle. There is the difficulty which my hon. friend speaks of, but the Mercantile Marine is bound to keep its vessels afloat and, so long as they operate, freights must be got wherever possible. So that there is in this line a competition for a certain part of the year, but these vessels prove a valuable addition during the sugar season because then there is more freight than could otherwise be moved.


John Howard Sinclair: This competition will make it unprofitable for the private company and next year the minister will find them asking for an increased subsidy. That is what I wish to avoid. There should be no competition of this kind. The Government have full control of the routes. My right hon. friend fixes the rates obtaining on the subsidized routes; they are submitted to him and he approves of them. So that it is not a question of rates, and if the Government step in with their boats and operate over the same lines as these subsidized vessels, the business will be unprofitable to the latter, and inevitably they
will come back for increased subsidy. I do not know whether the minister sees my point.


George Eulas Foster: I see the point.


John Howard Sinclair: Then I hope it will be given some consideration.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The point made by my hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair), is perfectly clear. We have an item of $340,366.60 for a line to the West Indies and South America. Now, we are told that we have our own boats serving a part of that route, so that we are in competition with the vessels running there. Yet the Government is so exceedingly generous that it gives to a company with whom it is competing for trade the sum of $340,000 odd. They give them that magnificent handicap and then boldly and proudly step up and say: We will get plenty of profit notwithstanding this handicap we are giving them. Does it strike my hon. friend as good business that we should be spending $75,000,000 of the people's money in the building of boats and in looking for trade and then when we find an old service established on this route which we intend to work, instead of trying to displace those competitors, give them a subsidy? The Canadian people will not look favourably on that kind of business. We should do one thing or the other; either take these boats away and put them somewhere else and let the other people go on as they did before, or, if we find that there is enough business to warrant competition, discontinue the subsidy. It is an old theory that the moment a water route becomes so profitable that it can stand competition, the subsidy must go. I thought that principle was always recognized by the Government, and if the minister finds that there is enough business for our boats as well as those of this company, let him drop the subsidy.


George Eulas Foster: We cannot drop the subsidy because this is a passenger service.


Frank S. Cahill: The minister should let the item stand until we can have the benefit of the advise of the Minister of Marine, who is in charge of shipping affairs as subordinate to the Minister of Railways, who is in turn under the Board of Management. We should wait until we can get some information to see if this line of ships is really competing with us, and if the subsidy is any longer necessary. This item amounts to about $1,000 per day, which is a good deal of money in these times for the Canadian people to pay, especially when they are paying something

like $200,000 a day of a loss on the Canadian National railways. I think the minister should let the item stand until we can see whether there is not some way by which we can save this $1,000 a day.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think there is any reason for allowing the item to stand. This is a vote which we must have; we must keep that service up; otherwise the whole business would fall to pieces. The boats on this route carried pretty nearly $10,000,000 worth of export freight.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the necessity of maintaining this service when vessels of the Canadian Merchant Marine are available?


George Eulas Foster: The vessels of the Canadian Merchant Marine could not carry on the service at all; they are entirely freight vessels. This is a freight and passenger line, and we must preserve it if we are going to maintain communication between Canada and these islands.


James Hamilton Ross: Why not utilize the Canadian Merchant Marine when two of its vessels are also being fitted up for this line?


George Eulas Foster: Not this line.


James Hamilton Ross: Then what line is it?


George Eulas Foster: That is. another line running from Canada to the Bahamas, Jamaica and British Honduras, an altogether different line.


James Hamilton Ross: I am very much inclined to agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Cahill) with regard to this particular item. It seems to me that when we are spending $340,000 a year subsidizing boats for a service to the West Indies, and when vessels of the Canadian Merchant Marine make thirty-two trips, apparently, to the same ports that these vessels serve, we might very well effect some economy here.


George Eulas Foster: Not to the same ports; they are thousands of miles apart.


James Hamilton Ross: That may be true, but you have now about thirty-nine vessels in the Canadian Merchant Marine and you are about to increase that number to sixty. It seems to me to be inconsistent, and very bad business, to be building vessels for the Canadian Merchant Marine which will have all they can do to operate at a profit if they, go on this service, and at the same time subsidizing other lines that will compete with us. It would appear that there is not proper co-ordination between the department of my right hon. friend, and

the Department of Marine and Naval Affairs. Under the circumstances, and until we get some explanation from the Minister of Marine that will clear up the uncertainty about this matter, I think the item ought to stand.


John Howard Sinclair: At
what ports in South America do the vessels on this service touch?


George Eulas Foster: These vessels do not run to South American ports.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, they go to Deme-rara.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, they do touch at Demarara.


William Stevens Fielding: That is a South American port.


Frank S. Cahill: The minister stated that a trade of $10,000,000 had been developed. Now, I understand this is a passenger line. How many passengers are represented in that $10,000,000? I do not see the necessity for subsidizing passenger service when it is freight we are looking for, and when we have our own freight ships tied up owing to lack of cargoes. The explanation given by the minister is not very illuminating-it does not explain anything. I regret that the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) is not in his seat. I am sure that if he were here to-night he would express very strong opposition to this policy of granting subsidies for this purpose. I think, therefore, the minister should let this item stand and give my hon. friend from Red Deer an opportunity of condemning the Government for its extravagance.


George Eulas Foster: The $10,000,000 was the value of the export freight carried. In addition there were a number of passengers amounting to something over three thousand.


Frank S. Cahill: And we pay about $100 apiece for carrying these passengers.


George Eulas Foster: We are carrying freight as well as passengers.


Frank S. Cahill: But our own ships are tied up in port waiting for freight to carry. Apparently our own ships are capable of carrying this freight, so we do not need to subsidize this passenger service. What benefit is it to us? Would it not be better for us to do away with this subsidy and let our own vessels attend to whatever freight business there is?


George Eulas Foster: You might do away with the subsidy but you would also do away with our West Indian trade in so far as the agreement between ourselves and the West Indies is concerned. If my hon. friend were to look into the matter he would not entertain the idea that you could do away with this passenger and freight service. Unfortunately, our own vessels do not carry passengers. If our own vessels had the necessary passenger accommodation there would be no question about employing them, but they do not and there is the difficulty.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada and South Africa, steamship service between, $146,000.
George Eulas Foster: That is the usual vote.


Frank S. Cahill: I would like to have some information about this item. To say "This is the usual vote" is a very poor explanation for these huge expenditures. Are we getting any value for the money? Is it any benefit to the country? Are we getting fifty cents on the dollar, or ten cents on the dollar, or any value at all for our money? We are voting these large amounts from year to year and the minister says in regard to each of them, "It is the usual vote." To say that it is "the usual vote" might perhaps have been satisfactory when we had lots of money, but it is not satisfactory now when we have unusual taxation. The people of this country are sufficiently burdened without our passing large expenditures on any such ground.


George Eulas Foster: If the vote was there before, it is pretty good proof that it was supposed by Parliament to be necessary, and the necessity does not seem to have diminished. Last year about $10,000,000 worth of exports was carried from our country by that route to South Africa. It is the only subsidized service we have between the two countries. During the last ten years our trade with South Africa has greatly improved. Our merchants are largely availing themselves of this service; in fact it is the only traffic line that they can avail themselves of to get to the South African market. The service might be dropped, but our whole trade with South Africa might then be diverted to some other country.


Frank S. Cahill: What is our principal trade with South Africa?


George Eulas Foster: I have told my hon. friend that the vessels on this service carried exports to the value of $10,585,000.


Frank S. Cahill: I suppose the products are principally manufactured products that we are now paying the equivalent of a bonus to have manufactured?	.


George Eulas Foster: Yes. It is quite necessary that everything they manufacture should be sold. It is part of our trade.


Frank S. Cahill: It is not necessary that the people of Canada should be taxed to find an outlet for the goods of the manufacturer; that is the business.


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Frank S. Cahill: We tried that with Rou-mania. We not only furnished the goods but we paid for them and sent them over there to give the manufacturers something to do. We are taking entirely too much interest in Mr. Manufacturer. He is perfectly capable of taking care of himself, much more so than the farmer or the labouring man who has to pay these subsidies to support the manufacturer. The manufacturer is getting it at both ends; he insists on protection to rob the people here, and not satisfied with that he must rob them again by way of subsidies.


George Eulas Foster: "Rob" is a good strong word.


Frank S. Cahill: I know of no stronger
word. If I did I would use it. There is not any more positive robbery in the world than the robbery of the Canadian people by the Canadian manufacturers with the aid of the Government. I think it is about time we took notice of these things. The Government should say to the manufacturers, "Here, these people will some day revolt against this kind of thing."


George Eulas Foster: We take notice of these things every year when we discuss these Estimates and pass them.


Frank S. Cahill: We have loaned our gold to every country in the world that cared to borrow it until now we have nothing to base our currency on but cabbages and carrots. But we are not satisfied to buy the manufacturer's goods and sell them to people who will never pay their obligations, we must also provide means for transporting his goods. Do you not think it is time for the people to have a "look-in"

instead of continuing to rob them from day to day? My right hon. friend argues that the point of view of the Government is always right. My experience since I have been in the House is that more often their viewpoint is wrong, and they have had to admit that themselves sometimes. We should stop squandering money to ship the manufacturer's goods for him when he is not in a position to pay himself. Let him look after his own business for awhile.


John Archibald Maharg: Does our disadvantage lie in our geographical position or in the incapacity of our manufacturers, or is this subsidy for the purpose of inducing ships to come here and give the manufacturers a cheaper rate? It did not look so serious until the minister said that if we did not vote this subsidy we would lose trade. There must be something wrong somewhere if the holding of this trade is contingent upon the subsidizing of boats to carry our manufactured goods to market.


James Hamilton Ross: Does the Government intend putting any of our Mercantile Marine boats on the South African route?


George Eulas Foster: I do not know. The Government may put on some boats to West Africa. This is to South Africa.


James Hamilton Ross: I think we should have information.


George Eulas Foster: The export
trade in 1912 amounted to $4,000,000 in round figures, last year to $10,585,000. Our trade has been growing with Africa.


James Hamilton Ross: I am not disputing that. I see in 1914 the trade was $3,000,000 and in 1920 it was over $8,000,000. But we should know what is contemplated.


George Eulas Foster: We are putting on our own boats where we can do so. For instance, last year we had a subsidy to a steamship line to Australia amounting to about the same as this. Our own boats have been put on that route and we have withdrawn the subsidy. In so far as our own boats can be substituted to do the work it is our policy to use them.


James Hamilton Ross: My right hon. friend is today asking for a subsidy to Australia in the next item $130,000.


George Eulas Foster: That is on the Pacific side.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Pacific Ocean. Canada and Australia or New Zealand, or both, on the Pacific Ocean, steam service between, $130,509.
John Howard Sinclair: This item appears to be subject to the same criticism I made in regard to the sailings toi the West Indies and South America. There are three proposals here now to establish monthly sailings between Canada and Australia.


George Eulas Foster: The first refers to the service that I spoke of a moment ago from the Atlantic seaports to Australia and New Zealand. That has been taken off.


John Howard Sinclair: We are going to establish a service from the Atlantic side by our Government Merchant Marine, and yet subsidize similar services by this vote?


George Eulas Foster: No, not similar services. The service which was carried on for a number of years from the Atlantic ports to Australia and New Zealand was a freight service. For that has been substituted our own vessels, so that subsidy has been withdrawn. On the Pacific side the subsidy I am asking for is contributed by ourselves and New Zealand to a passenger and freight service regularly from Vancouver and Victoria, touching at Fiji and New Zealand and going on to Australia. It is a first-class service. The year before last we gave a subsidy of $180,000, and I have reduced it to $130,000. I should be very sorry to see the subsidy taken away, because I think the service would be withdrawn.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this one of the C. P. R. boats?


George Eulas Foster: No, the Union Steamship line.


John Howard Sinclair: If the minister would tell us between what ports this service, and the monthly sailings provided by the Department of Marine are to be given, I think we could understand the item.


George Eulas Foster: This line of vessels starts at Vancouver and touches at Victoria.


John Howard Sinclair: I am referring to the one on this side.


George Eulas Foster: I am referring to the one on the other side.


John Howard Sinclair: I have no trouble with the one on the other side. My hon. friend tells me it is the Atlantic service he is going to subsidize.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. frienl and my other hon. friend thought it was the Pacific side. They are confusing that service with the service on the Atlantic side. We had subsidized for several years a service between the Atlantic ports of Canada and ports in Australia and New Zealand. That subsidy has been dropped, because the Mercantile Marine has put its own vessels on it.


John Howard Sinclair: The
mercantile marine propose to put two lines of vessels on the Pacific-monthly sailings direct from Vancouver to Australia and monthly sailings direct from Vancouver to New Zealand. Will that be a similar service to that which my hon. friend now proposes to subsidize?


George Eulas Foster: I do not know the ports at which that service really touches, but if its objective is Australia it will probably touch at Sydney, as is the case with the service proposed to be subsidized.
I do not know whether the ports of call are the same in the case of the New Zealand services.


John Howard Sinclair: This is subject to the same criticism as was made in the other case. My right hon. friend is paying his competitor $130,000 to take business away from himself. He should delay the passage of this item until he can consult with the Minister of Marine and ascertain whether or not this subsidy can be dispensed with, as was done in the case of the Atlantic service.


George Eulas Foster: The vessels operated by the Canadian Mercantile Marine on the Pacific are exclusively freight vessels. If we are to have a first-class ser-' vice between Canada and Australia and New Zealand we must have vessels equipped to carry passengers as well as freight.


James Hamilton Ross: Do the vessels of the mercantile marine on the Atlantic carry passengers?


George Eulas Foster: No.


John Howard Sinclair: Some
of them are equipped to carry passengers. I know that one left Halifax a few days ago with passengers.


George Eulas Foster: Not on that
route. The two vessels which have been fitted up for passenger service go to Jamaica, Nassau and British Honduras.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There should have been a thorough agreement between the Minister

of Marine and the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to the new routes which were to be established. Will the minister say that he was consulted about the various new services which are to be operated by the government-owned boats?


Sir GEORGE  POSTER@: I assure my
hon. friend that I am not running the mercantile marine.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then what has been
said by the member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) is quite right, that there should be a clear understanding between the Minister of Marine and the Minister of Trade and Commerce on these subjects.


Sir GEORGE  POSTER@: My hon. friend must remember that the classes of vessels in these respective services are different. One is freight solely; the other must be first class passenger and freight.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: These services are all for the one people and I do not think it is proper that two departments should act in' dependently when the business is practically the same. Our purpose is to carry trade from Canada to the outside world and vice versa, and if that is to be done by government-owned boats we should not subsidize companies to do the same work. There should be no unnecessary expenditure of the people's money.


George Eulas Foster: It would be
very much easier if the classes of vessels were the same.


John Howard Sinclair: How
many boats does the subsidized company propose to operate in this service?


George Eulas Foster: They make a
voyage every four weeks, the ports of call being Vancouver, Victoria, Honolulu, Fiji Islands, Auckland, and a port in Australia.


James Hamilton Ross: How many passengers do
they carry?


George Eulas Foster: In 1919 they
carried 9,521. The value of export freight carried was $5,305,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This line has been
subsidized for quite a number of years, I believe, and so fas as the minister has told us there is no complaint of congestion of freight or inability on the part of the service to carry what was offered. If we are getting the necessary service as the result of this subsidy, why put our own boats on the same service when we could use them elsewhere with advantage? We

need boats on the St. Lawrence to carry coal to points where it is much needed. Here is a service which is strictly for our own people, and for which a crying need is felt. I see nothing in the proposals of the Minister of Marine which would indicate that any provision is being made for a service of that kind. He does seem to be very solicitous, however, about Australia, New Zealand, and other countries. If the minister can disperse with those far- [DOT] away voyages and put those vessels on serviceable routes in the very heart of our own country, that is what our people will approve more than speculating where or not they shall get any trade on the Pacific in New Zealand, Australia or any of those far-away ports. The principle seems to be that these boats must be put out of sight somewhere or the people will find fault.
I _ wish to bring to the notice of the minister something I discovered within the last two days that I did not know" before.
I find that Norwegian boats which used to carry coal from Nova Scotia to Montreal and St. Lawrence ports are almost prohibited from entering into the trade at all by an Order in Council that was passed in 1902, and although the situation was relieved by an Order in Council which permitted those boats to run, I understand that the last Order in Council permitting them was passed in 1915; and it expired in 1916, so that to-day a Norwegian boat cannot carry on coastal trade in Canada, and it will be very difficult for our coal dealers to get ships to carry their coal.


George Eulas Foster: Those ships
cannot do coastal trade in Canada?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They cannot carry a
pound of freight from one Canadian port to another Canadian port. When we are carrying coal from North Sydney to Montreal, that is, of course, from one Canadian port to another. They cannot handle that trade. Therefore, it is highly important that our boats should do the business-I am not suggesting that they do it for nothing-as cheaply as possible and put us on an independent footing, so that our companies can make contracts with Quebec, Montreal and other places, knowing that they will always have the steamers to carry the coal. The minister is, perhaps, not aware that this is the situation to-day.
I have made inquiries of the Marine and Customs Departments within the last two days, and I was positively informed tonight, that no Norwegian boat, nor any

other foreign boat, can carry freight between any one port and another in Canada.


George Eulas Foster: Unless they reciprocate with our vessels. I suppose that is the principle.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is the situation
now. We have nothing to send to Norway, and there is nothing to do after we get there, so that reciprocity would be of no good to us. I am very glad, for one thing, that we have those ships, and I am sure the minister will keep in mind, in co-operation with the other department, that that is the best service in which they can 'be used.


Robert Hamilton Butts: My hon. friend (Mr. Mc-
Kenzie) has spoken a number of times about those ships and about the St. Lawrence coal trade. He referred to the matter several days ago in the House. I think I am not going too far when I tell my hon. friend that I have it on very credible authority that those ships that he speaks of as being tied up in different ports, are now under repairs and being refitted for the coal trade of the coming summer, and that they are now under contract and will likely be in the coal trade carrying coal from Sydney Harbour to Montreal and the different St. Lawrence ports.


George Eulas Foster: That answers
the question of my hon. friend.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am glad that the
hon. member has come to the assistance of the minister. My right hon. friend did not know what was going on in his department. Now we have it on the highest possible authority that certain repairs are going on and possibly some contracts will be entered into.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend ought to be satisfied.


John Howard Sinclair: Another feature of this matter that I do not think the minister has looked into is the enormous expense he will incur in running this service to New Zealand and Australia by these large Governement boats if there is no trade for them. If it is true that the service that we now have is able to carry the goods that are passing between Vancouver and Australia and New Zealand, why are we proposing now to put on five 8,000-ton boats to compete with the service that we are now subsidizing? This is what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries says:
Vancouver-Australia and New Zealand service. Established February 23, 1920: Monthly sailings: Allotted five 8,100-ton steamers: These
steamers call, East and West bound, at Wellington, Auckland, Sydney and Melbourne.
The expenditure of running these five large steamers between Vancouver and Australia will be enormous. They have to plough their way through the Pacific ocean burning coal that will cost some six dollars a ton. You cannot expect them to run for a day with less than fifty tons of coal, so that that amounts to $300. Therefore, the five boats will take at least $1,500 worth of coal per day to keep them running on the Pacific ocean, and the coal is only a small item compared with wages and other expenses to keep these steamers in commission. This looks to me like an insane proposal unless the minister can show an enormous increase in trade between Vancouver and those ports in Australia and New Zealand. The Marine Department are proposing to put those five large government owned boats on that service, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is proposing to subsidize * the old service that carried the trade before, and we have no information at all to show us that there is any need of putting those new boats on. The minister ought to take my advice and stop asking for the passing of this item until he consults the Minister of Marine' and Fisheries in order to find out just where he stands in regard to this matter.


James Hamilton Ross: In answer to a question
I asked, the minister stated that some 9,000 passengers were carried from Vancouver to Australia. Did he mean that the subsidized boats had carried 9,000 passengers?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


James Hamilton Ross: Did he also mean that the
$5,000,000 worth of goods shipped from Canada to Australia was carried by those boats?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


James Hamilton Ross: What is the tonnage of those boats?


Mr. PECK:: Some of the boats that run
to Australia are first class ships of ten, twelve and fifteen thousand tons. Our ships are not in the same class.


George Eulas Foster: The tonnage
of the Makura is gross, 8,200 and the Niagara, 13,444.


James Hamilton Ross: Our ships are 8,100 tons.


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions- local services-Mulgrave and Canso, steam service-between, *$13,500.
John Howard Sinclair: Has this contract been renewed for the coming year?


George Eulas Foster: I think it has. It will be anyway.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pictou, Montague, Murray Harbour, and Georgetown, steam service between, $6,000.
Mr. McISAAC:: Has this service been renewed?


George Eulas Foster: I am not sure, but it is about the time for signing the contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to. /
Supervision of subsidized steamship services, expenses in connection with, $4,000.
William Stevens Fielding: Before we dispose of this last item I would like to remind my right hon. friend that last session I called his attention to what I supposed was an accident in the omission of a small subsidy of $1,000, I think the amount was for the steam service between the town of Lock-port and Froude's Point. It is a service between the Canadian National railways and the town of Lockport. My right hon. friend said that he had dropped it out as he understood it was merely a ferry of three-quarters of a mile, speaking from memory. I pointed out that that was quite a mistake. By road it is four or five miles, and by water four miles. It is really an important service. It is not a question of subsidizing any company, for the service is maintained by the town of Lockport, and if there is any deficiency the town has to make it up by taxing the people. I think it is as legitimate a claim as many of these here of the same class. I am quite sure that my right hon. friend was mistaken on the ground on which he left this item out, and I draw his attention to the matter now in the hope that when the Supplementary Estimates are being prepared he will be able to make provision for it. It is not a question of subsidizing any private capitalist or anything of that sort. It is a service run by the town of Lockport, and is of vital importance to them and also to the Canadian National railways. Lockport is one of the largest towns on the south coast, and is a very important fishing community. It is already doing a large fishing business, and would do a much greater business if it had better transportation

facilities. My right hon. friend cannot introduce an item now, but I trust he will make a note of it and make provision for this service in the Supplementary Estimates.


George Eulas Foster: I will certainly look into it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Government

Patent & Copyright- Salaries, $161,292.50 ; contingencies, $35,000.
John Howard Sinclair: Is this increase of almost $29,000 justifiable?


George Eulas Foster: The increase is due largely to the reclassification. Then there are some additional appointments which are necessary in order to clear up the arrears of work which have accumulated during the latter years of the war. Extra examiners have to be appointed for the largely increased number of applications for patents. While the war was on, there were not so many applications, but now the applications are in arrears and piling up, and when people pay for patents they want them got out. I have very carefully gone over this vote, and I can assure my hon. friend there are no unnecessary additions to the staff. ^


William Stevens Fielding: Are we doing something this session with regard to copyright? Is ther a Bill under consideration?


George Eulas Foster: There is a Bill under way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On the motion of Sir George Foster the House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.
Monday, April 4, 1921.